Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] boston: Ensure DDR address calcuations don't overflow

2018-01-22 Thread Daniel Schwierzeck
On 22.01.2018 19:54, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote: > > > On 22.01.2018 19:01, Paul Burton wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:31:25PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote: >>> On 18.01.2018 22:19, Paul Burton wrote: When constraining the highest DDR address that U-Boot will use

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] boston: Ensure DDR address calcuations don't overflow

2018-01-22 Thread Daniel Schwierzeck
On 22.01.2018 19:01, Paul Burton wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:31:25PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote: >> On 18.01.2018 22:19, Paul Burton wrote: >>> When constraining the highest DDR address that U-Boot will use for its >>> data & relocated self, we need to handle the

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] boston: Ensure DDR address calcuations don't overflow

2018-01-22 Thread Paul Burton
Hi Daniel, On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:31:25PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote: > On 18.01.2018 22:19, Paul Burton wrote: > > When constraining the highest DDR address that U-Boot will use for its > > data & relocated self, we need to handle the common case in which a 32 > > bit system with 2GB

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] boston: Ensure DDR address calcuations don't overflow

2018-01-19 Thread Daniel Schwierzeck
On 18.01.2018 22:19, Paul Burton wrote: > When constraining the highest DDR address that U-Boot will use for its > data & relocated self, we need to handle the common case in which a 32 > bit system with 2GB DDR will have a zero gd->ram_top, due to the > addition of 2GB (0x8000) to the base

[U-Boot] [PATCH] boston: Ensure DDR address calcuations don't overflow

2018-01-18 Thread Paul Burton
When constraining the highest DDR address that U-Boot will use for its data & relocated self, we need to handle the common case in which a 32 bit system with 2GB DDR will have a zero gd->ram_top, due to the addition of 2GB (0x8000) to the base address of kseg0 (also 0x8000) which overflows