n900 in next-20170901

[Joonsoo Kim]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:16:51AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim at lge.com> [170907 00:30]:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 06:30:57AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim at lge.com> [170905 16:32]:
> > > > I think that I made a mistake for configuration CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y and
> > > > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y. In this case, the MOVABLE_ZONE can
> > > > be *!highmem*. Could you check that your configuration have above
> > > > options?
> > > 
> > > CONFIG_HIGHMEM is set yeah.
> > > 
> > > > And, could you check that following patch works for you?
> > > 
> > > Does not seem to help, tried against next with just 9caf25f996e8
> > > revert and also with 9caf25f996e8.
> > 
> > Oops. I misunderstood your problem. Could you test with
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > After commit 9caf25f996e8, user for CMA memory should use to check
> > PageHighmem in order to get proper virtual address of the page. If
> > someone doesn't use it, it is possible to use wrong virtual address
> > and it then causes the use of wrong physical address.
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL would catch this case.
> 
> OK, no extra output of current next with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y.
> Booting of n900 hangs with just the same error:
> 
> save_secure_sram() returns 0000ff02
> 
> > If it doesn't help, is there a way to test n900 configuration in QEMU?
> 
> I doubt that QEMU n900 boots in secure mode but instead shows
> the SoC as general purpose SoC. If so, you'd have to patch the
> omap3_save_secure_ram_context() to attempt to save secure RAM
> context in all cases. If that works then debugging with any
> omap3 board like beagleboard in QEMU should work.

Sorry for late response.

I tried to emulate beagle board by using QEMU and now I find the way
and it works. However, it doesn't call omap3_save_secure_ram_context()
due to different omap_type(). And, even if I call it forcibly, the
system dies with prefetch abort regardless of commit 9caf25f996e8.

Could you let me know the better way to test your situation?

Anyway, could you test linux-next with 'CONFIG_HIGHMEM = n'?
I'd like to know if the issue is related to the change that
all CMA memory is managed like as highmem.

Thanks.