coreboot

GSoC [early debugging] The very short introduction

Oh dear, what did I get into again. My GSoC 2014 project page gives you an idea of things to expect during this summer of code and seems like I have promised to deliver a lot this time. More like a complete in-circuit-debugging solution of x86 boot firmware over some readily available and low-cost USB hardware. I only scratched the surface with my GSoC 2013 when I did not get much further than a working usbdebug and some intense clean-up and preparation on the CBMEM side.

There has been serious use of usbdebug combined with SerialICE to troubleshoot and/or reverse-engineer proprietary firmwares. Tests have been done to connect GDB stub built into coreboot over BeagleBone even before debug target has initialized RAM. Also other pieces of my project plan have already seen proof-of-concepts but the quality or the flexibility have not reached the requirements to see them in widespread use in coreboot community.

We can see more practical uses for SerialICE if we could connect QEMU, GDB, SerialIce and radare together, and visualize some of the system bus topologies at runtime. With the amount of support CPU and chipset vendors have shown towards open-source firmware development the last years, I consider this as a key part for any further community-driven mainboard ports on coreboot.

GSoC [early debugging] More connectivity

A substantial cleanup on CBMEM initialisation is now under review. Goal is to get timestamps and CBMEM console supported on more/most mainboards, but I do not expect to complete this during the official GSoC period, or within the next two weeks time.

One of the goals I originally had set was to have means to re-program the flash chip from pre-OS environment. It is now clear I will not have time to finish (or even start) this part of the project. The decision to delay this part was made quite early on, actually. I learned similar work had already been developed as a combination of FILO+libflashrom, and I hope Stefan’s efforts on another GSoC project will help get this code published in near future. I might still try to get the FILO console appear over usbdebug, adding support of USB communication class (CDC / ACM) in libpayload should not be very difficult.

I have saved some of the most interesting and challenging parts last: having SerialICE and GDB run over usbdebug. Hopefully I get to report about those next week.

GSoC [early debugging] Bridging the gap

ARM is now on the table, as I am bridging the coreboot console from USB to gigabit ethernet, using a BeagleBone board equipped with the USB debug device gadget driver. At first I was a bit concerned of all the latency having an USB-to-ethernet bridge software solution on the communication, so it was now good time to do some measurements.

I used daemon called ser2net to redirect coreboot console TTY to TCP (telnet) and enabled timestamping to estimate the time it takes from power-on to entering payload on amd/persimmon with maximum logging (level=spew).

First, connecting with serial UART @115200bps on x86 host this was total of 15 seconds. Of this it spent 4 seconds in AGESA doing some SPI flash operations and during that time there was no console output.

Repeating same using usbdebug on the BeagleBone OTG port, total time was 9 seconds and again 4 seconds was waiting for SPI completion. I would say we have a rough figure that console output on usbdebug is twice as fast as what super-IO can typically offer.

Driver compilation and patches are updated here: http://www.coreboot.org/EHCI_Gadget_Debug

To use BeagleBone some additional work was needed on coreboot side but BeagleBone Black and other ARM boards where there is no hub between OTG connector and controller should already work.

A brief progress sheet

Last week, I laid out a list of things to do in order to get more of the protocol finalized. Most of the items are crossed off, however, one little item remains standing. This item, while innocent and seemingly harmless is more painful than falling on your buttocks from a 10 story building on solid granite. Let’s have a look at why this small item is of such significance.

new API call set_chip_size()

When people think of QiProg, they think of one gadget with one flash chip connected. This is the common case, and, for the foreseeable future, will be the de-facto way of using QIProg. However, the original USB specification was intended for a broader use case: a programmer with several, individually addressable chips connected. One who observes the qiprog_read_chip_id() call will notice that it translates to a READ_CHIP_ID request over USB. This request will return identification data for up to nine chips. Aye, there’s the rub.

How does this play into set_chip_size()? Simple, set_chip_size for which chip? Do we send a flat list of nine uint32_t sizes, thus only needing one round-trip (control request) for all chips? Do we use the wIndex field of the round-trip, at the cost of needing one such trip for each chip? Once this question is answered, it will determine the answer for set_[erase/write]_[size/command] call and their respective USB round-trips, thus completing the USB protocol, and bringing QiProg to a usable state.

It’s easy to see why this one little detail is a blocker for all other remaining issues. I am leaning towards the use of wIndex (not the glass cleaner). Implementing a new control request in software and firmware is a matter of minutes. Testing it, and making sure it works properly is, at most, a two hour endeavor. Getting the design right: priceless.

GSoC [early debugging] USB submission

Seems I am reaching one of my goals of my original GSoC proposal in bringing usbdebug available as a compile option for most the mainboards with compatible chipset.

As I wrote in an earlier blog, it has been more of a refactoring job on existing code rather than creating something entirely new. There are a series of protocol details where I spotted the implementation took some shortcuts and I have attempted to fix those. I also made improvements to better control how the possible debug dongle connection is probed. There is more testing needed there and also it needs to be fixed to not become excessively slow when dongle is not connected or if it is disconnected before OS is loaded.

At the time of writing, my patches have not yet been submitted to master but are available on the gerrit review board. It is likely there will be some minor fixes, so I will not give exact commit hashes one should checkout and merge. In short: checkout and merge the two topic-branches usbdebug-cfg and usbdebug-lib. In addition, for AMD Agesa boards one needs “AMD AGESA: Place CAR_GLOBAL in BSP stack”.

Now if you only had something to connect it with, I could ask for your help actually testing these changes and finding out if it works! I am still waiting for my BeagleBone Black to arrive to make some fixes to the kernel EHCI debug gadget driver, and the situation with the choice of debug dongles will then improve quite radically. I do have the older BeagleBone and have built custom kernel modules for it and I have started to study how g_dbgp driver interacts with the gadget serial port framework.

What I discovered after picking up a second-hand original BeagleBone was that it does not have its USB port directly connected to the ARM chip, but there is an USB hub chip in between. It might be possible to configure that hub even though our USB requests are limited to a length of max 8 bytes per transaction. The EHCI debug specs do not allow a hub there, but if we can make it work, why not do it?

Experiments of mind

The time for writing code is over. The time to design hardware is over. After seven weeks, the beginning has come to an abrupt end. I am severely behind schedule. In week seven I was supposed to implement erase functionality — tell the programmer how to erase the chip. This is not done. On the other hand, I have had code for weeks 8 and 9 almost ready, and just merged most of it last week. So, where am I? Am I ahead or behind schedule?

The fallacy of preemption

One of the requirements for applying as a GSoC coreboot student was to have a fully established, schedule from day[-1]. Establishing this schedule was a great experience, and it allowed me to think in depth about the problem and possible solutions — to a certain degree. I picked the steps I considered logical, in the order which I saw logical. Development is never about writing code in the order in which it will be executed. In this particular case, it was much easier to implement bulk writing without a predefined erase/write strategy, opting instead for a default just-do-it approach.

Why is this approach better than following the schedule, from a development point of view? We have had bulk read partially working for a while now. From the host point of view, reading and writing are symmetrical operations. The bulk of the code (pun definitely intended) is shared between the read and write operation. They both juggle data on the same endpoint. The only difference is the endpoint direction bit. It therefore made sense, once bulk reading was fixed for corner cases, to uses the same code to send data to the programmer. Making the programmer write that data was a matter of a couple of hours. There was no sensible reason to wait an additional two weeks before implementing this last bit.

Software development work is as much about making things work, as it is about the application of programming principles with unquestionable moral authority and correctness. In this case, implementing a trivial extension reusing code fresh in my mind was the preferred approach. Not only did it save me time by not having to re-examine the situation a few weeks from now, it also allows me to have a working program/verify scenario when implementing the erase strategies. As one might imagine, this makes the problem a lot easier. Attempting to preempt and enforce a schedule before the problem is thoroughly explored, occasionally conflicts with best practices of development. With this in mind, I am neither behind, nor ahead of schedule. I am precisely where I need to be.

A matter of experimentation

Most of the infrastructure and code is already in place. Bringing QiProg to completion is no longer an issue of adding functionality through code, but rather completing functionality by connecting the existing code. One issue I discovered after testing the bulk program code was a terrible race condition between read prefetching and the write loop. The prefetch logic incremented the internal address before data arrived. As a result, the new data would get written at the wrong address. Choosing the best solution to the problem is a matter of experimentation.

The “this won’t work because of that” and “what if this” turned into a series of exhausting thought experiments. I have been bugging Peter a lot in the past few days about a series of potential issues. Through tiring thought experimentation, we eventually agreed that the best way to proceed was to abstract a lot more through the API. This is a non-exhaustive list of the decisions we’ve made in the past week:

set_address() is hidden from the API
the internal address range is not exhausted once read or written
read and write operations must not be interdependent, the internal read and write pointers will be distinct (as a side effect, this change also eliminates the race condition depicted above)
set_address() + readn() turns into read(dev, where, n)
All API addresses begin at 0. The programmer translates that into an absolute address
new API call set_chip_size()
new API call to explicitly erase blocks or sectors (to be defined)
implicit erase on write can be enabled or disabled (to be defined)
implicit erase will erase the sector/block right before the first byte of the sector is written
exposing any USB specific dependencies in the API is strictly forbidden

My focus for the remainder of this week will be to shorten this list as much as possible. Once the dependency between read and write is unshackled, I will be able to erase/program/verify my faithful SST 49LF080A. From here, it will be a matter of finalizing and implementing the last obscure bits of the specification.

The state of QiProg for flashrom

As QiProg is still being finalized, implementing it as a flashrom programmer is still a long ways ahead. I do estimate that weeks 11 and 12 will provide ample time to integrate everything into flashrom, hopefully, in time for the 0.9.8 release.

VultureProg command center

It was time to upgrade. I got a new desk last week. For me, a piece of furniture is as boring as watching stainless steel rust (it does rust eventually). A desk, on the other hand, is anathema to replace. I have 20+ wires connected to my workstation going in all sorts of places. I like to keep these wires carefully routed and out of sight, a task made all the more difficult by the lack of any wire management gizmos on new desks. Consequently, after I get a new desk, you are well within your rights to imagine me grabbing my drilling machine, a set of saw cutter bits and an assortment of hole covers — and you need not wait long to see it. Needless to say, getting back up and running has taken a few days, but we are back with a shiny new VultureProg command center (pictured above for your viewing convenience).

The 80-20 rule

In 2011 I used to work developing Android apps. My boss told me “you will spend 20% of the time writing 80% of the code, and you will spend the remaining 80% of the time writing the remaining 20% of the code”. Sadly, QiProg has proven to not be an exception to this rule. Although I have consistently fixed issues and improved the layout of the code, the number of lines of code has been more or less stagnating after the first three weeks of exponential growth. I know how to erase the chip, I know how to program the chip, I know how to read the chip, and I have code to do all that. I just have not yet had the chance to hook it up to the ecosystem.

I am currently working on improving the bulk reading code. There are a few corner cases which are not well handled. As expected, it is taking a lot of time, and I even had to write a special testcase before I started.

Did you want fries with that?

Although we know how to handle every single aspect of the identify/read/erase/write/verify cycle, finding a way of connecting everything together in a simple, elegant, and efficient manner is a different story altogether. We have three API calls for handling erase and write, namely qiprog_set_erase_size, qiprog_set_erase_command, and qiprog_set_write_command. Peter wants everything to work without requiring an explicit erase. In his view, the VultureProg firmware should automatically erase a sector that is being written. Although this would simplify dumb cases where the whole chip or large sections of a chip are written at once, it spells disaster for flashrom’s aggressive optimization. What happens if the first part of a block matches contents, and flashrom decides to write the other part without needing an erase? VultureProg would erase the entire block, then write the second part to the block we never meant to erase. Questions such as this one need to be carefully thought over and elegantly answered. If I blindly start putting all the code together right now, I’ll most certainly have to fix it later.

Postal patronage

I received a very interesting package last week. I had a deal with Idwer to get him rid of a few LPC and FWH flash chips. I was able to take them off his hands for just a few euros, a deal made sweeter by the fact that those chips are no longer being sold anywhere. I also sent Peter a VultureProg board. Since he already has a Stellaris or two, I have just recruited an eager tester.

Can you send me a board?

Short answer, no. Just grab the gerbers and take them to SeeedStudio. They will be able to get boards in your hands for much less than what I pay to ship them. The two SMD capacitors are not hard to assemble. If you still want me to send you an assembled PCB, I will charge $50 (international) or $30 (US). I don’t have the physical time to sit and assemble PCBs by hand, plus, it would be very un-geekish of you to not assemble your own.

VultureProg: Equipped for galactic travel

It’s here! And it’s ready for takeoff. The VultureProg PCBs have finally arrived, and it is time to turn VultureProg from a proof-of-concept toy to a serious galactic tool. My major concern was that I could have misrouted one or two connections. The LAD pins are particularly sensitive, as they need to be mapped to sequential GPIO pins, and start from GPIO0, otherwise we need to do bitshitfs in every LPC cycle, killing any hope of decent performance. I was also worried that the particularly tight tolerances could be problematic during manufacture. Everything works as expected. Enough words, let’s see the porn.

vultureprog_shuttle — Brings back memories, doesn’t it?

vultureprog_shuttle_angle — The world’s first fully assembled VultureProg board

From bitstream to reality

I found it interesting to look at the transformation from a spaghetti on the screen to something real, something tangible.

vultureprog_shuttle_sbs — From conception to birth: the complete transformation

No thorough and thoughtful post today. I have a new toy.

QiProg: Expanding the flight range

Today is disappointing. I was expecting to have gotten the first batch of VultureProg PCBs. Having arrived in the US on Tuesday, I did not expect the package to be hovering in New York for most of this week. The need for eating the spaghetti and eliminating the hanging wires is growing more and more urgent with each speed increase. The long wires and insane inductance is already getting in the way of the signals, the lack of physical portability of the test setup is annoying, and the pain of accidentally knocking out a few wires is unbearable. Where are my PCBs ?!!!

High speed tests

The Stellaris is getting faster, much faster than initially predicted. From the pathetic 23 KiB/s read speed during the first tests, it now comfortably does over 450 KiB/s. The emulated LPC bus goes so fast, that I need to lower the CPU’s core clock down to a measly 16MHz to be able to just capture all the details of the waveforms.

Too much impedance

24MHz logic analyzer + Nyquist theorem = 12+MHz LPC clock

We’re pushing a 12MHz signal through 20+ centimeter hanging wires, routing them through a solder-less breadboard, then a socket, with the added load of probe wires. I was getting random errors or bad data, yet as soon as I disconnected the probe wires, everything magically worked. It must have had something to do with signal rise and fall times. On the Stellaris, this was relatively easy to cheat and fix by increasing the drive strength.

Where’s my bandwidth?

450 KiB/s * 1024 * 17 clocks/byte = 8 MHz LPC clock

Something does not add up. We know we’re running at over 12MHz because we can not sample the signal well, yet the throughput is much smaller. The USB on the Stellaris is easily capable of 1 MiB/s. To quote Seconds from Disaster, “when investigators looked at […], what they found shocked them”:

The LPC bus is idle 30% of the time. We’re driving the bus so fast, that loop overhead is not only noticeable, but significant. Killing this overhead has the potential to bring the speed to 600 KiB/s.

Insect season

It’s a hot summer in Houston, with air conditioning running around the clock. Stepping in the hot, wet weather outside results in an instant cascade of sweat. Insects are crawling from every nick and crevice, fire ants are spawning from the underground in huge mounds, and mosquitoes are raising their own deadly army of high-pitched buzzers. The QiProg and VultureProg trees are no different.

I’ve made the executive decision to fix bugs as soon as they are getting in the way. I intentionally avoid the use of the term found. I can find my own damn bugs, however, it’s fixing them that is the problem. I prefer to have all the pieces in place before I polish and shine them.

A ripe testing ground

Out of curiosity, I wanted to see if VultureProg will work on Install’n’Pray operating systems (InP). InP are known for their excellent ability to expose even the smallest, most innocent problems, and expose problems where there are none. If VultureProg can work in an InP environment, it most certainly will be stable in unix-like environments. Although it did not work at first, testing on InP has lead to a number of fixes.

Where next?

We have bulk reading completed, which was initially scheduled for week 6. Weeks 7 and 8 look scary, with a lot of goodies, including program and erase functionality. I’ve decided to peek early into how to program and erase LPC chips. I found flashrom’s jedec.c to be of great help: QiProg knows how to byte-program and erase JEDEC-compliant chips. A lot is still scattered in topic branches here and there, waiting for one’s mercy to merge. Somebody please send me some coffee.

Kick-starting with some maintenance

EHCI, USB, LOL, OTG, CBMEM, OMG, CAR. Those have been the topics of my first week of GSoC on the coreboot tree. Dozen or so patches in, same amount waiting on approvals or further actions from me. I was glad to find my mentors with many ideas for refactoring and working actively on reviews. Nice start I would say!

It turned out usbdebug support in coreboot may not be very widely tested, hardware has typically had serial ports available for the same task. With some required bugfixes on cache-as-ram and CBMEM, I now have identical output on usbdebug when compared for CBMEM console and serial console. For my setup, that is. More needs to be done to get AMD boards supported once again. I also get to fix usbdebug receive side to make it a usable pipe for GDB and SerialICE, and I want it to handle USB errors and disconnects gracefully.

On the debugging hardware side things have brightened up quite a bit. While the original Net20DC product is discontinued, I was concerned the only solution is the DIY version pictured on the right. I have then received positive feedback and testing from the community (thanks Denis and Aaron) of using some inexpensive ARM boards as USB debug gadgets. To make them work flawlessy, some modification needs to be done on the USB gadget framework drivers on the kernel side. I should try to find someone already familiar with the gadgets to take this development task as I believe it is of interest for kernel developers too.

Some principal decisions on payloads have been made. I would first add usbdebug support for FILO. I am eagerly waiting for the FILO payload with flashrom to be released, this would gain us methods to program the system flashchip from USB storage, in a pre-os environment.

Category: USB