Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH][v2] arch/powperpc: Fix start_align due to use of __ffs64() instead ffs64()

[york sun]

On 01/22/2016 02:20 AM, Ashish Kumar wrote:
>  Return value of ffs64() different to that of __ffs64(),
> ffs64(0x8000) = 0x20
> __ffs64(0x8000) = 0x1f,
>as result of this change -1 from start_align needs to be removed.
>  Incorrect DDR law was created in case of B4860qds
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kumar 
> ---
>  * Test on B4860qds and T1040
>  * 83xx platform not tested

Revised commit message as

Incorrect DDR law was created in case of B4860qds after commit
2d2f490d. Return value of ffs64() differs from __ffs64(), eg.
ffs64(0x8000) = 0x20
__ffs64(0x8000) = 0x1f
As a result of this change, callers need to adjust the expected
return value by removing -1.

Applied to u-boot-mpc85xx master branch. Awaiting upstream.

Thanks.

York

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH][v2] arch/powperpc: Fix start_align due to use of __ffs64() instead ffs64()

[york sun]

On 01/22/2016 02:20 AM, Ashish Kumar wrote:
>  Return value of ffs64() different to that of __ffs64(),
> ffs64(0x8000) = 0x20
> __ffs64(0x8000) = 0x1f,
>as result of this change -1 from start_align needs to be removed.
>  Incorrect DDR law was created in case of B4860qds
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kumar 
> ---
>  * Test on B4860qds and T1040
>  * 83xx platform not tested

(resend)

Revised commit message as

Incorrect DDR law was created in case of B4860qds after commit
2d2f490d. Return value of ffs64() differs from __ffs64(), eg.
ffs64(0x8000) = 0x20
__ffs64(0x8000) = 0x1f
As a result of this change, callers need to adjust the expected
return value by removing -1.

Applied to u-boot-mpc85xx master branch. Awaiting upstream.

Thanks.

York


___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [PATCH][v2] arch/powperpc: Fix start_align due to use of __ffs64() instead ffs64()

[Ashish Kumar]

 Return value of ffs64() different to that of __ffs64(),
ffs64(0x8000) = 0x20
__ffs64(0x8000) = 0x1f,
   as result of this change -1 from start_align needs to be removed.
 Incorrect DDR law was created in case of B4860qds

Signed-off-by: Ashish Kumar 
---
 * Test on B4860qds and T1040
 * 83xx platform not tested

 arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/law.c |4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/law.c |4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/law.c b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/law.c
index 262ae7f..ae9cba8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/law.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/law.c
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ int set_ddr_laws(u64 start, u64 sz, enum law_trgt_if id)
if (start == 0)
start_align = 1ull << (LAW_SIZE_2G + 1);
else
-   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start) - 1);
+   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start));
law_sz = min(start_align, sz);
law_sz_enc = __ilog2_u64(law_sz) - 1;
 
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ int set_ddr_laws(u64 start, u64 sz, enum law_trgt_if id)
if (sz) {
start += law_sz;
 
-   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start) - 1);
+   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start));
law_sz = min(start_align, sz);
law_sz_enc = __ilog2_u64(law_sz) - 1;
ecm = >sysconf.ddrlaw[1];
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/law.c b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/law.c
index 24baad4..bd79297 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/law.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/law.c
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int set_ddr_laws(u64 start, u64 sz, enum law_trgt_if id)
if (start == 0)
start_align = 1ull << (LAW_SIZE_32G + 1);
else
-   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start) - 1);
+   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start));
law_sz = min(start_align, sz);
law_sz_enc = __ilog2_u64(law_sz) - 1;
 
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ int set_ddr_laws(u64 start, u64 sz, enum law_trgt_if id)
if (sz) {
start += law_sz;
 
-   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start) - 1);
+   start_align = 1ull << (__ffs64(start));
law_sz = min(start_align, sz);
law_sz_enc = __ilog2_u64(law_sz) - 1;
 
-- 
1.7.6.GIT

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot