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 <sfa...@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@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev