Bug 5235 - generic-x86_64 dmesg errors on Sugarbay
Summary: generic-x86_64 dmesg errors on Sugarbay
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: BSPs
Classification: Build System, Metadata & Runtime
Component: bsps-meta-intel (show other bugs)
Version: 1.5
Hardware: x86 x86_64
: Medium normal
Target Milestone: 1.5
Assignee: Nitin Kamble
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-09-19 14:17 UTC by Razvan Ionescu
Modified: 2013-10-11 14:10 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
OS type for building Yocto: ---
Type of Regression: ---
Verified:
Documentation change: Don't know


Attachments
dmesg log - sugarbay - genericx86_64 (42.99 KB, application/octet-stream)
2013-09-19 14:17 UTC, Razvan Ionescu
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Razvan Ionescu 2013-09-19 14:17:57 UTC
Created attachment 1525 [details]
dmesg log  - sugarbay - genericx86_64

There are dmesg errors on Sugarbay, generic-x86_64 image.

Examples:
[    1.891913] v86d[96]: segfault at 0 ip 0000000000401749 sp 00007fffc9ff23d0 error 4 in v86d[400000+1a000]
[    6.893422] uvesafb: probe of uvesafb.0 failed with error -22
[    7.509635] parport_pc: probe of 00:0a failed with error -16
[    7.529112] ata6: SError: { HostInt 10B8B }
         res 51/24:03:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 Emask 0x40 (internal error)


1.5_M5_RC4 Build
poky 853bc53cd58a621918f0e5ce662dba263d1befb4
meta-intel 66def4d09cbdf1614622a7ab1d84bef312b5f55d
Comment 1 Darren Hart 2013-09-19 14:50:43 UTC
Do these prevent a successful boot? Or are they benign?

Nitin, can you please look at this while your working the other two sugarbay bugs?
Comment 2 Richard Purdie 2013-09-19 14:56:50 UTC
We're seeing these in the qemux86/qemux86-64 images occasionally too, e.g. on the -rc4 build: http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8011/builders/nightly-qa-logrotate/builds/3/steps/Running%20Sanity%20Tests/logs/stdio in the automated sanity tests.

Downloading that image didn't show the bug locally.

So it seems like some kind of race.
Comment 3 Darren Hart 2013-09-19 14:59:08 UTC
Bumping to Medium as it contains a segfault with v86d and is also seen on qemux86-64 on the AB.
Comment 4 Nitin Kamble 2013-10-02 20:18:23 UTC
This does not happen with the oecore commit:
This is the oecore commit pulling in the kernel fixes:

commit 41875facc982f1c96a5ddf275adba1634b1a5ced
Author: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
Date:   Wed Sep 25 15:30:12 2013 -0400

    linux-yocto/3.10: common-pc* config updates
    
    Bumping the 3.10 meta branch SRCREV to import the following config changes
    for tghe sugarbay and common-pc wifi fragments.
    
       dad2b7e common-pc-64: add kernel CONFIG options for sugarbay platform
       37c617d common-pc-wifi.cfg: add support for broadcom wifi drivers
    
    [YOCTO #5117]
    [YOCTO #5238]
    
    (From OE-Core rev: 180f465b0cab13e17dc92ac5c88d7d9001cd5b11)
    
    Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
    Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Comment 5 Razvan Ionescu 2013-10-03 11:19:11 UTC
I have tested with: dora:a02280f99f05b1c21de2a78de9222a2f62a0dabc (1.5 M5 RC6)
which includes the: commit 41875facc982f1c96a5ddf275adba1634b1a5ced and it is not fixed.

The bug remains open.
Comment 6 Nitin Kamble 2013-10-03 17:48:01 UTC
I am not able to reproduce the issue here. I think it may be issue with the BIOS on your sugarbay platform.
Comment 7 Stoicescu Cornel 2013-10-04 07:44:01 UTC
Hello Nitin,

Can you please direct us to where we can get or we can find an appropriate BIOS update for the Sugarbay platform? 

Thank you :)
Comment 8 Razvan Ionescu 2013-10-10 11:01:00 UTC
Interesting fact: testing this bug on Sugarbay, using a Sugarbay image (so, NO generic), there is no dmesg segfault error at all.
So, I incline to say that it is not a BIOS problem.
Comment 9 Stoicescu Cornel 2013-10-11 14:10:18 UTC
I tested this on a Lenovo ThinkPad X220 (i5 2520M) that is compatible with the Sugarbay platform. The dmesg errors do not appear here and I incline to the fact that it's a BIOS issue. 

Marking it as RESOLVED. We will do a BIOS update on the other platform and set this to VERIFIED if all is well then.