[poky] BeagleBoard using GCC 4.6.0

Thu Jun 9 04:20:39 PDT 2011

On 06/09/2011 12:48 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 07:24 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> On 06/08/2011 06:42 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2011 11:20 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2011 10:43 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>>> Now that Poky is using GCC 4.6.0, has anyone actually checked the
>>>>> operation on the BeagleBoard? I suspect that you'll find that the
>>>>> EHCI USB does not work. I can't really check here as I don't trust
>>>>> the EHCI on my BeagleBoard rev C3 (not xM).
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I've tried this new compiler (previously reported) on
>>>>> my own OMAP/3530 board which uses the same 2.6.37 kernel (just not
>>>>> the linux-yocto version). When I build my kernel with GCC 4.5.2,
>>>>> it works perfectly, but fails with GCC 4.6.0 (I trust the hardware).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've isolated it down to at least the function 'ehci_hub_control'
>>>>> (but I suspect the problem is more fundamental). Comparing the code
>>>>> generated by the two compilers with the same source tree, this function
>>>>> is dramatically different. I can see why it's failing, I just don't
>>>>> know why the compiler is doing what it's doing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if Khem Raj is on this list, so I am forwarding it to him,
>>>> he might have some insight.
>>>>
>>>> Sau!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The lines at drivers/usb/host/ehci-hub.c:841
>>>>> case GetPortStatus:
>>>>> if (!wIndex || wIndex > ports)
>>>>> goto error;
>>>>> wIndex--;
>>>>> status = 0;
>>>>> temp = ehci_readl(ehci, status_reg);
>>>>>
>>>>> are being compiled very differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> With GCC 4.5.2:
>>>>> 0xc0229810 <ehci_hub_control+672>: cmp r3, #0 ; 0x0
>>>>> 0xc0229814 <ehci_hub_control+676>: beq 0xc0229df8
>>>>> <ehci_hub_control+2184>
>>>>> 0xc0229818 <ehci_hub_control+680>: cmp r3, r0
>>>>> 0xc022981c <ehci_hub_control+684>: bgt 0xc0229df8
>>>>> <ehci_hub_control+2184>
>>>>> 0xc0229820 <ehci_hub_control+688>: sub r8, r3, #1 ; 0x1
>>>>> 0xc0229824 <ehci_hub_control+692>: ldr r5, [r7, #4]
>>>>> 0xc0229828 <ehci_hub_control+696>: uxth r8, r8
>>>>> 0xc022982c <ehci_hub_control+700>: dmb sy
>>>>>
>>>>> With GCC 4.6.0:
>>>>> 0xc0221630 <ehci_hub_control+808>: cmp r3, #0 ; 0x0
>>>>> 0xc0221634 <ehci_hub_control+812>: beq 0xc0221d7c
>>>>> <ehci_hub_control+2676>
>>>>> 0xc0221638 <ehci_hub_control+816>: cmp r3, r0
>>>>> 0xc022163c <ehci_hub_control+820>: bgt 0xc0221d7c
>>>>> <ehci_hub_control+2676>
>>>>> 0xc0221640 <ehci_hub_control+824>: sub r7, r3, #1 ; 0x1
>>>>> 0xc0221644 <ehci_hub_control+828>: add r3, r11, #16 ; 0x10
>>>>> 0xc0221648 <ehci_hub_control+832>: add r3, r8, r3, lsl #2
>>>>> 0xc022164c <ehci_hub_control+836>: uxth r7, r7
>>>>> 0xc0221650 <ehci_hub_control+840>: ldrb r5, [r3, #5]
>>>>> 0xc0221654 <ehci_hub_control+844>: ldrb r2, [r3, #4]
>>>>> 0xc0221658 <ehci_hub_control+848>: orr r5, r2, r5, lsl #8
>>>>> 0xc022165c <ehci_hub_control+852>: ldrb r2, [r3, #6]
>>>>> 0xc0221660 <ehci_hub_control+856>: ldrb r3, [r3, #7]
>>>>> 0xc0221664 <ehci_hub_control+860>: orr r5, r5, r2, lsl #16
>>>>> 0xc0221668 <ehci_hub_control+864>: orr r5, r5, r3, lsl #24
>>>>> 0xc022166c <ehci_hub_control+868>: dmb sy
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, the old compiler accesses the ehci status register
>>>>> in a single access, the new compiler dances around and makes multiple
>>>>> accesses, which in the end get very incorrect data (I think that this
>>>>> register is like many which clear bits on reads).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas where I can go with this? I'm really trying to keep up with
>>>>> Poky/Yocto, but this move to GCC 4.6.0 has broken my ARM targets :-(
>>>>> I do have PowerPC targets as well - they seem fine (from limited
>>>>> testing)
>>>>> with the new compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: if you want to see the whole function disassembly, look at
>>>>> http://www.mlbassoc.com/poky/ehci_hub_control-disassembly-gcc-4.5.2
>>>>> http://www.mlbassoc.com/poky/ehci_hub_control-disassembly-gcc-4.6.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. thanks for sending the sample code.
>>> Can you add -fstrict-volatile-bitfields option to CFLAGS while
>>> compiling this file or even the kernel for test sake ?
>>> and see if the problem goes away ?
>>
>> Sorry, this doesn't seem to make any difference in the generated code.
>> Hardly surprising as the register in question is a simple u32, not a
>> bitfield.
>>
>
> I reduced the testcase a bit further and it seems the bug is similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/PR45819
>
> but a bit different that in this case -fstrict-volatile-bitfields does not help
>
> a fix for this particular problem is
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h b/include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h
> index 6563802..b8c1833 100644
> --- a/include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h
> +++ b/include/linux/usb/ehci_def.h
> @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ struct ehci_dbg_port {
> u32 data47;
> u32 address;
> #define DBGP_EPADDR(dev, ep) (((dev)<<8)|(ep))
> -} __attribute__ ((packed));
> +} __attribute__ ((packed,aligned(__alignof__(int))));
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK_DBGP
> #include <linux/init.h>
>
>
> since this particular structure all elements are integers but there might be more packed structures which have say char or short ints
> and are not necessarily ordered in the descending order of alignment
>
> Try it out and see if it helps

Yes, this does fix the problem :-)  The EHCI USB port on the OMAP
is working again.

Thanks

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------