Re: n900 in next-20170901

[Tony Lindgren]

* Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> [170907 00:30]:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 06:30:57AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> [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.

Regards,

Tony