[PATCH] PPC440EPx SDRAM width
Steven A. Falco
sfalco at harris.com
Fri Apr 24 02:00:02 EST 2009
Valentine Barshak wrote:
>
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 06:40:48PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>>> Stefan Roese wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 23 April 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:36:12AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>>>>>> There is an error in the way ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize calculates
>>>>>> memory size. When testing the DDR_REDUC bit, the polarity is
>>>>>> backwards. A "1" implies 32-bit wide memory while a "0" implies
>>>>>> 64-bit wide memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a 32-bit wide system, this bug causes twice the memory to be
>>>>>> reported, leading to boot failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco <sfalco at harris.com>
>>>>> So we had a previous patch for this, and a very long discussion on
>>>>> what the
>>>>> right solution was. Either we never came to a resolution, or I
>>>>> have just
>>>>> forgotten what it was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan, Valentine, do either of you remember?
>>> The patch will break sequia/rainier since u-boot doesn't set the
>>> number of chipselects correctly for them.
I had wondered about that. I was surprised that sequoia uboot
enabled both cs bits - now I know why it worked. Two wrongs
sometimes do make a right. :-)
>>> IIRC, the last
>>> conversation didn't come to any conclusion. We sort of wanted to fix
>>> that regardless of whether we had corrected u-boot or not.
That would have saved me a bit of grief. It will probably
help someone else someday too.
>>> Could we use a "model" property to distinguish between the "real"
>>> sequoia/rainier and other custom boards?
>>> If yes, we could add a workaround the ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize to
>>> hardcode the chipselect number to 1 for sequoia/rainier.
>>
>> We could do that perhaps, yes. In cases where the board has a newer
>> U-Boot
>> with the fix already, it shouldn't really cause any harm, correct?
>
> Yes, that's correct.
Not sure if you want me to do something further in my patch.
Are you suggesting testing for model = "amcc,sequoia" and
forcing cs to 1, or is there more to it?
Steve
>
> Thanks,
> Val
>
>>
>> josh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list