RE: Virtex-II Pro tlbia exception

Excellent; I now get past the tlbia.
What happens soon thereafter, though, is troubling.

What I see is, from the beginning of vmlinux:

*	At phys. 00000000, save regs.
*	bl initial_mmu (still running from real memory)
	-	map c0000000 to 00000000, 16 MB
	-	return
*	back near the top of head_4xx.S:
	-	set SRR1 to 0x1032
	-	set SRR0 to c00022dc (vrt. start_here)
	-	rfi
*	Processor starts to fetch from address 0xc00022dc.

Problem:  c000xxxx is still apparently not mapped!
I can dump out 0000xxxx region & still see expected
vmlinux data; I dump out c000xxxx region and see
zeroes.
(This is a strange fact of MicroBlaze & VII-Pro --
non-existent address ranges do provide data on a
read,
and read back as zeroes.)

Furthermore, XMD (if it can be trusted) tells me the
MSR is still zero!

The 0x0030 in 0x1032 should set MSR[IR] and MSR[DR].
Xilinx notes that the 0x0002 bit is reserved; I also
tried setting SRR1 to just 0x1030, but with no
difference.

I'm at a loss here, as the Xilinx docs are quite
clear
that you set SRR1 to your desired MSR value, SRR0 to
return address, then rfi.  But it seems to simply
*not
happen*.

Has anyone gotten a VII-Pro system off the ground
and
is willing to share advice and/or code?

Thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Prakash kanthi [mailto:pkanthi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:00 PM
To: Kerl, John;
'linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org'
Subject: Re: Virtex-II Pro tlbia exception


John,

I had similar problems. Here is what i would do.

1. Check the ESR register for the exception. If the
exception indicates "Illegal Instruction", problem
could be because your hw folks i have mmu_enable
signal set to 'net_gnd'. Ask them to change it to
'net_vcc', and you are good to go.

2. If the ESR does not help you much, double check
your code that does I/D cache cleanups.

Prakash

--- "Kerl, John" <John.Kerl@Avnet.com> wrote:

quoted

Hello all,

After several weeks on other projects I am picking
up on
the VII-Pro again.

For reference, we have our firmware up and running
fine on
the board; we can talk to the UART, and SDRAM

tests

quoted

fine.
(The hardware-level verification is actually
something we are
good at doing.)

Using arch/ppc/boot/avnet (modified from
arch/ppc/boot/common),
along with our firmware, I'm able to build a
zImage.initrd.elf,
TFTP to the board, and jump into
arch/ppc/boot/avnet/misc-embedded.c.
This code reports on the bd_t parameters passed

from

quoted

the firmware
(all parameters are as expected), and decompresses
the kernel to
address 0.  I can hex-dump the address-0 region &

I

quoted

find that
what I see in vmlinux on the host PC really is

what

quoted

I see at
address 0 and above.

Then the arch/ppc/boot code jumps to address 0,
entering vmlinux
per se.  The first few instructions (head_4xx.S)
save boot args
r3-r7 to r31-27, then jump to initial_mmu.  The

very

quoted

first thing
there is a tlbia.

Now, when I single-step through this, I find that
the debugger
(XMD) shows me tlbia being executed twice (e.g.
"stp" once and
I'm still at the tlbia, "stp" again and continue),
and also
the next instruction after that is fetched from
address 0xedba0700.

Now, the 0xedba0000 prefix is, as far as I can

tell,

quoted

garbage.
8xx's have an MSR bit that specifies whether
exception prefixes
are 0x00000000 or 0xfff00000; I see no such bit

for

quoted

the VII-Pro 405.
And the 0700 suffix looks like a program check;

yet,

quoted

my MSR is 00000000
indicating that I am indeed in privileged mode.
SRR0 is just the
address of the tlbia.

Since I've been running simple-minded firmware up

to

quoted

this point, I
think it highly likely that I haven't yet told the
405 to be in
some mode it needs to be in.  But I don't know

what.

quoted

 I checked
around in PPCBoot source for the ML2 board,

thinking

quoted

that perhaps
someone else porting to Virtex-II Pro might have
found some magic
ingredient, but actually the initialization there
appears to be
minimal (as expected).

Does anyone know why (a) the prefix 0xedba is so
bizarre, (b)
why I appear to be taking a program check, and/or
(c) am I
missing some initialization steps that the

firmware

quoted

should
have done?

Thanks.