* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
@ 2018-12-19 13:00 Andre Przywara
2018-12-29 18:53 ` [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] " Jagan Teki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andre Przywara @ 2018-12-19 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization
fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly (for instance
to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to some timing
issues in the DRAM code.
Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert this patch
to bring back those boards.
Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the error
message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
---
board/sunxi/board.c | 18 ++++++++----------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/sunxi/board.c b/board/sunxi/board.c
index 917f5b18f6..f022f365e9 100644
--- a/board/sunxi/board.c
+++ b/board/sunxi/board.c
@@ -637,6 +637,13 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
power_failed |= axp_set_sw(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AXP_SW_ON));
#endif
#endif
+ printf("DRAM:");
+ gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
+ printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
+ if (!gd->ram_size)
+ hang();
+
+ sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
/*
* Only clock up the CPU to full speed if we are reasonably
@@ -645,16 +652,7 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
if (!power_failed)
clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
else
- printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
- "CPU frequency not set.\n");
-
- printf("DRAM:");
- gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
- printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
- if (!gd->ram_size)
- hang();
-
- sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
+ printf("Failed to set core voltage! Can't set CPU frequency\n");
}
#endif
--
2.14.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-19 13:00 [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails" Andre Przywara
@ 2018-12-29 18:53 ` Jagan Teki
2018-12-29 22:10 ` Olliver Schinagl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jagan Teki @ 2018-12-29 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:32 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
>
> From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>
> Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization
> fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
> frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
> boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
> Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly (for instance
> to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to some timing
> issues in the DRAM code.
>
> Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert this patch
> to bring back those boards.
> Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the error
> message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
Better mark this as TODO somewhere, may be some one look it later.
>
> This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
>
> Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
> Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-29 18:53 ` [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] " Jagan Teki
@ 2018-12-29 22:10 ` Olliver Schinagl
2018-12-30 4:28 ` Priit Laes
2018-12-30 23:23 ` André Przywara
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Olliver Schinagl @ 2018-12-29 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
Curiosity is getting the better of me and I cant seem to be able to reproduce the problem. So could you be a little bit more specific on the bug please?
On December 29, 2018 7:53:49 PM GMT+01:00, Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:32 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>>
>> Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power
>initialization
>> fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
>> frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
>> boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
>> Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly (for
>instance
>> to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to some
>timing
>> issues in the DRAM code.
>>
>> Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert this
>patch
>> to bring back those boards.
>> Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the error
>> message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
>
>Better mark this as TODO somewhere, may be some one look it later.
>
>>
>> This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
>>
>> Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>
>Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-29 22:10 ` Olliver Schinagl
@ 2018-12-30 4:28 ` Priit Laes
2018-12-30 23:23 ` André Przywara
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Priit Laes @ 2018-12-30 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:10:36PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
>
> Curiosity is getting the better of me and I cant seem to be able to reproduce the problem. So could you be a little bit more specific on the bug please?
It broke on some H2+ devices.
Just tested this also on H3 Orange Pi PC Plus and here it works fine.
>
> On December 29, 2018 7:53:49 PM GMT+01:00, Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:32 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
> >>
> >> Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power
> >initialization
> >> fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
> >> frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
> >> boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
> >> Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly (for
> >instance
> >> to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to some
> >timing
> >> issues in the DRAM code.
> >>
> >> Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert this
> >patch
> >> to bring back those boards.
> >> Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the error
> >> message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
> >
> >Better mark this as TODO somewhere, may be some one look it later.
> >
> >>
> >> This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
> >>
> >> Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> >
> >Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-29 22:10 ` Olliver Schinagl
2018-12-30 4:28 ` Priit Laes
@ 2018-12-30 23:23 ` André Przywara
2018-12-31 10:34 ` Olliver Schinagl
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: André Przywara @ 2018-12-30 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 29/12/2018 22:10, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
Hi Olliver,
> Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to
> see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
This whole SPL is quite a sensitive construct, so moving things around
can have interesting effects. For instance try to use any .bss variables
(global variables initialised to 0) before the DRAM init.
Also especially the DRAM controller driver was written basically without
any single line of documentation. So bear with us if we didn't get
everything 100% correct.
I actually wanted to ask you: what was your patch meaning to fix in the
first place? All the patch did was to move the DRAM init after the CPU
clock setting, which was the exact reason for the breakage.
What that power_failed check does is to avoid increasing the CPU
frequency, before and after that patch. There are no other consequences.
So the effect would be just a mere change in the order of reporting,
since we continue execution in any case.
So was that the only purpose of the patch? I believe that could be
better done this way, without any side effects:
....
#endif
#endif
if (power_failed)
printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
"CPU frequency not set.\n");
<... DRAM init ...>
if (!power_failed)
clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
....
>
> Curiosity is getting the better of me and I cant seem to be able to
> reproduce the problem. So could you be a little bit more specific on the
> bug please?
As I wrote in the commit message, the OrangePi Zero breaks straight away
with this patch, all of the time: 0 MB DRAM. I don't have any other
affected board to test on, but there were reports of more boards not
working as well.
Since we shouldn't allow such drastic regressions, I believe it's best
to just revert the patch, given the short time to the release. Since I
consider the original patch more cosmetic than anything else, I believe
this is justified.
Cheers,
Andre
> On December 29, 2018 7:53:49 PM GMT+01:00, Jagan Teki
> <jagan@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:32 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>
> Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power
> initialization
> fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
> frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
> boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
> Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly
> (for instance
> to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to
> some timing
> issues in the DRAM code.
>
> Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert
> this patch
> to bring back those boards.
> Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the
> error
> message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
>
>
> Better mark this as TODO somewhere, may be some one look it later.
>
>
> This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
>
> Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
> Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>
>
> Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-30 23:23 ` André Przywara
@ 2018-12-31 10:34 ` Olliver Schinagl
2018-12-31 11:27 ` Michael Trimarchi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Olliver Schinagl @ 2018-12-31 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hey André,
On 31-12-2018 00:23, André Przywara wrote:
> On 29/12/2018 22:10, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>
> Hi Olliver,
>
>> Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to
>> see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
>
> This whole SPL is quite a sensitive construct, so moving things around
> can have interesting effects. For instance try to use any .bss variables
> (global variables initialised to 0) before the DRAM init.
> Also especially the DRAM controller driver was written basically without
> any single line of documentation. So bear with us if we didn't get
> everything 100% correct.
Actually, not exactly true. If you compare the DDR init with the
leaked/shared boot0 I think it was called; you'll see a lot of
similarities. So it's not hard to imageine it was at least inspired by
boot0.
That said, we still have no documentation, no idea who's IP it shares,
so it is really still shooting in the dark here and we are just happy we
have something that does work :) (albeit fragile it turns out now)
>
> I actually wanted to ask you: what was your patch meaning to fix in the
> first place? All the patch did was to move the DRAM init after the CPU
> clock setting, which was the exact reason for the breakage.
> What that power_failed check does is to avoid increasing the CPU
> frequency, before and after that patch. There are no other consequences.
> So the effect would be just a mere change in the order of reporting,
> since we continue execution in any case.
So it was cosemtic to the code. Mostly 'logical ordering'. First setup
the power, CPU etc, if all that is setup properly, setup the DRAM. With
the hoped side effect that with the faster running CPU init would happen
faster (I guess it does but fails :).
It was a little weird to first setup the DRAM and only then check if we
can even setup the CPU/PLL properly ...
It just made more sense to do it that way. I just realized I do have an
OPie zero; so maybe I'll look into it again in a few months to see
what's going wrong and where we can improve.
>
> So was that the only purpose of the patch? I believe that could be
> better done this way, without any side effects:
> ....
> #endif
> #endif
>
> if (power_failed)
> printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
> "CPU frequency not set.\n");
> <... DRAM init ...>
>
> if (!power_failed)
> clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
>
> ....
>
>>
>> Curiosity is getting the better of me and I cant seem to be able to
>> reproduce the problem. So could you be a little bit more specific on the
>> bug please?
>
> As I wrote in the commit message, the OrangePi Zero breaks straight away
> with this patch, all of the time: 0 MB DRAM. I don't have any other
> affected board to test on, but there were reports of more boards not
> working as well.
>
> Since we shouldn't allow such drastic regressions, I believe it's best
> to just revert the patch, given the short time to the release. Since I
> consider the original patch more cosmetic than anything else, I believe
> this is justified.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
>
>> On December 29, 2018 7:53:49 PM GMT+01:00, Jagan Teki
>> <jagan@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:32 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>>
>> Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power
>> initialization
>> fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
>> frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
>> boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
>> Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly
>> (for instance
>> to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to
>> some timing
>> issues in the DRAM code.
>>
>> Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert
>> this patch
>> to bring back those boards.
>> Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the
>> error
>> message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
>>
>>
>> Better mark this as TODO somewhere, may be some one look it later.
>>
>>
>> This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
>>
>> Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>
>>
>> Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-31 10:34 ` Olliver Schinagl
@ 2018-12-31 11:27 ` Michael Trimarchi
2018-12-31 13:10 ` André Przywara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Michael Trimarchi @ 2018-12-31 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:34:51AM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> Hey André,
>
> On 31-12-2018 00:23, André Przywara wrote:
> > On 29/12/2018 22:10, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> >
> > Hi Olliver,
> >
> > > Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to
> > > see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
> >
> > This whole SPL is quite a sensitive construct, so moving things around
> > can have interesting effects. For instance try to use any .bss variables
> > (global variables initialised to 0) before the DRAM init.
> > Also especially the DRAM controller driver was written basically without
> > any single line of documentation. So bear with us if we didn't get
> > everything 100% correct.
> Actually, not exactly true. If you compare the DDR init with the
> leaked/shared boot0 I think it was called; you'll see a lot of similarities.
> So it's not hard to imageine it was at least inspired by boot0.
>
> That said, we still have no documentation, no idea who's IP it shares, so it
> is really still shooting in the dark here and we are just happy we have
> something that does work :) (albeit fragile it turns out now)
>
> >
> > I actually wanted to ask you: what was your patch meaning to fix in the
> > first place? All the patch did was to move the DRAM init after the CPU
> > clock setting, which was the exact reason for the breakage.
> > What that power_failed check does is to avoid increasing the CPU
> > frequency, before and after that patch. There are no other consequences.
> > So the effect would be just a mere change in the order of reporting,
> > since we continue execution in any case.
>
> So it was cosemtic to the code. Mostly 'logical ordering'. First setup the
> power, CPU etc, if all that is setup properly, setup the DRAM. With the
> hoped side effect that with the faster running CPU init would happen faster
> (I guess it does but fails :).
>
> It was a little weird to first setup the DRAM and only then check if we can
> even setup the CPU/PLL properly ...
>
> It just made more sense to do it that way. I just realized I do have an OPie
> zero; so maybe I'll look into it again in a few months to see what's going
> wrong and where we can improve.
> >
> > So was that the only purpose of the patch? I believe that could be
> > better done this way, without any side effects:
> > ....
> > #endif
> > #endif
> >
> > if (power_failed)
> > printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
> > "CPU frequency not set.\n");
> > <... DRAM init ...>
> >
> > if (!power_failed)
> > clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
> >
> > ....
> >
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
index ee387127f3..296f9d11bc 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ struct sunxi_ccm_reg {
#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_N(n) ((((n) - 1) & 0x1f) << 8)
#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_P(n) (((n) & 0x3) << 16)
#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_EN (0x1 << 31)
+#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK (0x1 << 28)
#define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT 0
#define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_MASK (0xf << CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
index 1628f3a7b6..10759b7775 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
@@ -142,6 +142,9 @@ void clock_set_pll1(unsigned int clk)
ATB_DIV_2 << ATB_DIV_SHIFT |
CPU_CLK_SRC_PLL1 << CPU_CLK_SRC_SHIFT,
&ccm->cpu_axi_cfg);
+
+ while (!(readl(&ccm->pll1_cfg) & CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK))
+ ;
}
#endif
And waiting the pll1 to be lock does not change anything?
I don't have a board to test and I don't know why was not implemented
Michael
--
2.17.1
> > >
> > > Curiosity is getting the better of me and I cant seem to be able to
> > > reproduce the problem. So could you be a little bit more specific on the
> > > bug please?
> >
> > As I wrote in the commit message, the OrangePi Zero breaks straight away
> > with this patch, all of the time: 0 MB DRAM. I don't have any other
> > affected board to test on, but there were reports of more boards not
> > working as well.
> >
> > Since we shouldn't allow such drastic regressions, I believe it's best
> > to just revert the patch, given the short time to the release. Since I
> > consider the original patch more cosmetic than anything else, I believe
> > this is justified.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andre
> >
> > > On December 29, 2018 7:53:49 PM GMT+01:00, Jagan Teki
> > > <jagan@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:32 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "From: Karl Palsson" <karlp@tweak.net.au>
> > >
> > > Commit a8011eb84dfa("sunxi: board: Print error after power
> > > initialization
> > > fails") moved the DRAM init after the increase of the CPU clock
> > > frequency. This lead to various DRAM initialisation failures on some
> > > boards (hangs or wrong size reported, on a NanoPi Duo2 and OrangePi
> > > Zero, for instance). Lowering the CPU frequency significantly
> > > (for instance
> > > to 408 MHz) seems to work around the problem, so this points to
> > > some timing
> > > issues in the DRAM code.
> > >
> > > Debugging this sounds like a larger job, so let's just revert
> > > this patch
> > > to bring back those boards.
> > > Beside this probably unintended change the patch just moved the
> > > error
> > > message around, so reverting this is not a real loss.
> > >
> > >
> > > Better mark this as TODO somewhere, may be some one look it later.
> > >
> > >
> > > This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1.
> > >
> > > Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Applied to u-boot-sunxi/master
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
--
| Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Amarula Solutions BV |
| COO - Founder Cruquiuskade 47 |
| +31(0)851119172 Amsterdam 1018 AM NL |
| [`as] http://www.amarulasolutions.com |
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-31 11:27 ` Michael Trimarchi
@ 2018-12-31 13:10 ` André Przywara
2018-12-31 13:38 ` Michael Trimarchi
2018-12-31 19:31 ` Olliver Schinagl
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: André Przywara @ 2018-12-31 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 31/12/2018 11:27, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:34:51AM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>> Hey André,
>>
>> On 31-12-2018 00:23, André Przywara wrote:
>>> On 29/12/2018 22:10, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Olliver,
>>>
>>>> Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to
>>>> see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
>>>
>>> This whole SPL is quite a sensitive construct, so moving things around
>>> can have interesting effects. For instance try to use any .bss variables
>>> (global variables initialised to 0) before the DRAM init.
>>> Also especially the DRAM controller driver was written basically without
>>> any single line of documentation. So bear with us if we didn't get
>>> everything 100% correct.
>> Actually, not exactly true. If you compare the DDR init with the
>> leaked/shared boot0 I think it was called; you'll see a lot of similarities.
>> So it's not hard to imageine it was at least inspired by boot0.
Yeah, possibly. I did look at disassembly and decompilation of libdram
myself. But still the code was not good quality, and if you look at the
timing parameters, they don't seem to be quite right, for instance many
values don't match the JEDEC recommendations, and on most boards we run
DDR3-1600 chips at 672 MHz (so using 1333 timings).
So yeah, a lot of guesswork.
>> That said, we still have no documentation, no idea who's IP it shares, so it
>> is really still shooting in the dark here and we are just happy we have
>> something that does work :) (albeit fragile it turns out now)
Indeed. I think we have some idea on the origins of the IP (Designware),
but that doesn't help too much, for various reasons.
>>>
>>> I actually wanted to ask you: what was your patch meaning to fix in the
>>> first place? All the patch did was to move the DRAM init after the CPU
>>> clock setting, which was the exact reason for the breakage.
>>> What that power_failed check does is to avoid increasing the CPU
>>> frequency, before and after that patch. There are no other consequences.
>>> So the effect would be just a mere change in the order of reporting,
>>> since we continue execution in any case.
>>
>> So it was cosemtic to the code. Mostly 'logical ordering'. First setup the
>> power, CPU etc, if all that is setup properly, setup the DRAM. With the
>> hoped side effect that with the faster running CPU init would happen faster
>> (I guess it does but fails :).
>>
>> It was a little weird to first setup the DRAM and only then check if we can
>> even setup the CPU/PLL properly ...
>>
>> It just made more sense to do it that way. I just realized I do have an OPie
>> zero; so maybe I'll look into it again in a few months to see what's going
>> wrong and where we can improve.
>>>
>>> So was that the only purpose of the patch? I believe that could be
>>> better done this way, without any side effects:
>>> ....
>>> #endif
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> if (power_failed)
>>> printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
>>> "CPU frequency not set.\n");
>>> <... DRAM init ...>
>>>
>>> if (!power_failed)
>>> clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
> index ee387127f3..296f9d11bc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
> @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ struct sunxi_ccm_reg {
> #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_N(n) ((((n) - 1) & 0x1f) << 8)
> #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_P(n) (((n) & 0x3) << 16)
> #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_EN (0x1 << 31)
> +#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK (0x1 << 28)
>
> #define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT 0
> #define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_MASK (0xf << CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
> index 1628f3a7b6..10759b7775 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
> @@ -142,6 +142,9 @@ void clock_set_pll1(unsigned int clk)
> ATB_DIV_2 << ATB_DIV_SHIFT |
> CPU_CLK_SRC_PLL1 << CPU_CLK_SRC_SHIFT,
> &ccm->cpu_axi_cfg);
> +
> + while (!(readl(&ccm->pll1_cfg) & CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK))
> + ;
> }
> #endif
>
> And waiting the pll1 to be lock does not change anything?
I have a similar patch on this matter ready, but it didn't fix the
issue. Btw: you would need to do this before switching the clock over,
so replacing the sdelay() call.
> I don't have a board to test and I don't know why was not implemented
No idea either, but definitely the current sdelay() is way too short: I
counted 136 iterations of the LOCK bit loop, without the sdelay. With
the sdelay(200) there were still 101 iterations left.
Cheers,
Andre.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-31 13:10 ` André Przywara
@ 2018-12-31 13:38 ` Michael Trimarchi
2018-12-31 19:31 ` Olliver Schinagl
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Michael Trimarchi @ 2018-12-31 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 01:10:43PM +0000, André Przywara wrote:
> On 31/12/2018 11:27, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:34:51AM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> >> Hey André,
> >>
> >> On 31-12-2018 00:23, André Przywara wrote:
> >>> On 29/12/2018 22:10, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Olliver,
> >>>
> >>>> Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to
> >>>> see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
> >>>
> >>> This whole SPL is quite a sensitive construct, so moving things around
> >>> can have interesting effects. For instance try to use any .bss variables
> >>> (global variables initialised to 0) before the DRAM init.
> >>> Also especially the DRAM controller driver was written basically without
> >>> any single line of documentation. So bear with us if we didn't get
> >>> everything 100% correct.
> >> Actually, not exactly true. If you compare the DDR init with the
> >> leaked/shared boot0 I think it was called; you'll see a lot of similarities.
> >> So it's not hard to imageine it was at least inspired by boot0.
>
> Yeah, possibly. I did look at disassembly and decompilation of libdram
> myself. But still the code was not good quality, and if you look at the
> timing parameters, they don't seem to be quite right, for instance many
> values don't match the JEDEC recommendations, and on most boards we run
> DDR3-1600 chips at 672 MHz (so using 1333 timings).
> So yeah, a lot of guesswork.
>
According to my experience on A33 the idea is to use min_timing for all the supported
frequency but even there I found some mistakes.
We need to add anyway a function to set parameters manually for all the
boards. If the problem is timing they should crash in linux too. I was looking
on get_timer and delay implementation if those can depend on cpu(s) but look
like that this is not a possibility.
Anyway without board I can not help
> >> That said, we still have no documentation, no idea who's IP it shares, so it
> >> is really still shooting in the dark here and we are just happy we have
> >> something that does work :) (albeit fragile it turns out now)
>
> Indeed. I think we have some idea on the origins of the IP (Designware),
> but that doesn't help too much, for various reasons.
>
> >>>
> >>> I actually wanted to ask you: what was your patch meaning to fix in the
> >>> first place? All the patch did was to move the DRAM init after the CPU
> >>> clock setting, which was the exact reason for the breakage.
> >>> What that power_failed check does is to avoid increasing the CPU
> >>> frequency, before and after that patch. There are no other consequences.
> >>> So the effect would be just a mere change in the order of reporting,
> >>> since we continue execution in any case.
> >>
> >> So it was cosemtic to the code. Mostly 'logical ordering'. First setup the
> >> power, CPU etc, if all that is setup properly, setup the DRAM. With the
> >> hoped side effect that with the faster running CPU init would happen faster
> >> (I guess it does but fails :).
> >>
> >> It was a little weird to first setup the DRAM and only then check if we can
> >> even setup the CPU/PLL properly ...
> >>
> >> It just made more sense to do it that way. I just realized I do have an OPie
> >> zero; so maybe I'll look into it again in a few months to see what's going
> >> wrong and where we can improve.
> >>>
> >>> So was that the only purpose of the patch? I believe that could be
> >>> better done this way, without any side effects:
> >>> ....
> >>> #endif
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> if (power_failed)
> >>> printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
> >>> "CPU frequency not set.\n");
> >>> <... DRAM init ...>
> >>>
> >>> if (!power_failed)
> >>> clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
> > index ee387127f3..296f9d11bc 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
> > @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ struct sunxi_ccm_reg {
> > #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_N(n) ((((n) - 1) & 0x1f) << 8)
> > #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_P(n) (((n) & 0x3) << 16)
> > #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_EN (0x1 << 31)
> > +#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK (0x1 << 28)
> >
> > #define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT 0
> > #define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_MASK (0xf << CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT)
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
> > index 1628f3a7b6..10759b7775 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
> > @@ -142,6 +142,9 @@ void clock_set_pll1(unsigned int clk)
> > ATB_DIV_2 << ATB_DIV_SHIFT |
> > CPU_CLK_SRC_PLL1 << CPU_CLK_SRC_SHIFT,
> > &ccm->cpu_axi_cfg);
> > +
> > + while (!(readl(&ccm->pll1_cfg) & CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK))
> > + ;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > And waiting the pll1 to be lock does not change anything?
>
> I have a similar patch on this matter ready, but it didn't fix the
> issue. Btw: you would need to do this before switching the clock over,
> so replacing the sdelay() call.
>
You are right :( I just wrote to give an idea.
Michael
> > I don't have a board to test and I don't know why was not implemented
>
> No idea either, but definitely the current sdelay() is way too short: I
> counted 136 iterations of the LOCK bit loop, without the sdelay. With
> the sdelay(200) there were still 101 iterations left.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
--
| Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi Amarula Solutions BV |
| COO - Founder Cruquiuskade 47 |
| +31(0)851119172 Amsterdam 1018 AM NL |
| [`as] http://www.amarulasolutions.com |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-31 13:10 ` André Przywara
2018-12-31 13:38 ` Michael Trimarchi
@ 2018-12-31 19:31 ` Olliver Schinagl
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Olliver Schinagl @ 2018-12-31 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hey André,
On 31-12-2018 14:10, André Przywara wrote:
> On 31/12/2018 11:27, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:34:51AM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>>> Hey André,
>>>
>>> On 31-12-2018 00:23, André Przywara wrote:
>>>> On 29/12/2018 22:10, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Olliver,
>>>>
>>>>> Luckily we have had no problem with this on our boards, but its sad to
>>>>> see this patch reverted due to the buggy ddr implementation ...
>>>>
>>>> This whole SPL is quite a sensitive construct, so moving things around
>>>> can have interesting effects. For instance try to use any .bss variables
>>>> (global variables initialised to 0) before the DRAM init.
>>>> Also especially the DRAM controller driver was written basically without
>>>> any single line of documentation. So bear with us if we didn't get
>>>> everything 100% correct.
>>> Actually, not exactly true. If you compare the DDR init with the
>>> leaked/shared boot0 I think it was called; you'll see a lot of similarities.
>>> So it's not hard to imageine it was at least inspired by boot0.
>
> Yeah, possibly. I did look at disassembly and decompilation of libdram
> myself. But still the code was not good quality, and if you look at the
> timing parameters, they don't seem to be quite right, for instance many
> values don't match the JEDEC recommendations, and on most boards we run
> DDR3-1600 chips at 672 MHz (so using 1333 timings).
> So yeah, a lot of guesswork.
Well we also have official source release from Allwinner;
https://github.com/allwinner-zh/bootloader/blob/master/basic_loader/bsp/bsp_for_a20/init_dram/dram_init.c
Which first was leaked; but after it turned out to contain GPL source;
was released anyway.
But sure; even allwinner did a lot of guesswork there :)
Olliver
>
>>> That said, we still have no documentation, no idea who's IP it shares, so it
>>> is really still shooting in the dark here and we are just happy we have
>>> something that does work :) (albeit fragile it turns out now)
>
> Indeed. I think we have some idea on the origins of the IP (Designware),
> but that doesn't help too much, for various reasons.
>
>>>>
>>>> I actually wanted to ask you: what was your patch meaning to fix in the
>>>> first place? All the patch did was to move the DRAM init after the CPU
>>>> clock setting, which was the exact reason for the breakage.
>>>> What that power_failed check does is to avoid increasing the CPU
>>>> frequency, before and after that patch. There are no other consequences.
>>>> So the effect would be just a mere change in the order of reporting,
>>>> since we continue execution in any case.
>>>
>>> So it was cosemtic to the code. Mostly 'logical ordering'. First setup the
>>> power, CPU etc, if all that is setup properly, setup the DRAM. With the
>>> hoped side effect that with the faster running CPU init would happen faster
>>> (I guess it does but fails :).
>>>
>>> It was a little weird to first setup the DRAM and only then check if we can
>>> even setup the CPU/PLL properly ...
>>>
>>> It just made more sense to do it that way. I just realized I do have an OPie
>>> zero; so maybe I'll look into it again in a few months to see what's going
>>> wrong and where we can improve.
>>>>
>>>> So was that the only purpose of the patch? I believe that could be
>>>> better done this way, without any side effects:
>>>> ....
>>>> #endif
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> if (power_failed)
>>>> printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
>>>> "CPU frequency not set.\n");
>>>> <... DRAM init ...>
>>>>
>>>> if (!power_failed)
>>>> clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
>> index ee387127f3..296f9d11bc 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/clock_sun6i.h
>> @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ struct sunxi_ccm_reg {
>> #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_N(n) ((((n) - 1) & 0x1f) << 8)
>> #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_P(n) (((n) & 0x3) << 16)
>> #define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_EN (0x1 << 31)
>> +#define CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK (0x1 << 28)
>>
>> #define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT 0
>> #define CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_MASK (0xf << CCM_PLL3_CTRL_M_SHIFT)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
>> index 1628f3a7b6..10759b7775 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/clock_sun6i.c
>> @@ -142,6 +142,9 @@ void clock_set_pll1(unsigned int clk)
>> ATB_DIV_2 << ATB_DIV_SHIFT |
>> CPU_CLK_SRC_PLL1 << CPU_CLK_SRC_SHIFT,
>> &ccm->cpu_axi_cfg);
>> +
>> + while (!(readl(&ccm->pll1_cfg) & CCM_PLL1_CTRL_LOCK))
>> + ;
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> And waiting the pll1 to be lock does not change anything?
>
> I have a similar patch on this matter ready, but it didn't fix the
> issue. Btw: you would need to do this before switching the clock over,
> so replacing the sdelay() call.
>
>> I don't have a board to test and I don't know why was not implemented
>
> No idea either, but definitely the current sdelay() is way too short: I
> counted 136 iterations of the LOCK bit loop, without the sdelay. With
> the sdelay(200) there were still 101 iterations left.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
@ 2018-12-18 11:11 karlp at tweak.net.au
2018-12-18 11:20 ` Priit Laes
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: karlp at tweak.net.au @ 2018-12-18 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
From: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1
This causes DRAM init failures on (at least)
* allwinner h3 nanopi-duo2
* allwinner h2+ orangepi zero v1.1
Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
---
Ideally, this should get into 2019.01, so that this release is not
broken on those targets.
board/sunxi/board.c | 18 ++++++++----------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/sunxi/board.c b/board/sunxi/board.c
index 917f5b18f6..f022f365e9 100644
--- a/board/sunxi/board.c
+++ b/board/sunxi/board.c
@@ -637,6 +637,13 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
power_failed |= axp_set_sw(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AXP_SW_ON));
#endif
#endif
+ printf("DRAM:");
+ gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
+ printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
+ if (!gd->ram_size)
+ hang();
+
+ sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
/*
* Only clock up the CPU to full speed if we are reasonably
@@ -645,16 +652,7 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
if (!power_failed)
clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
else
- printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
- "CPU frequency not set.\n");
-
- printf("DRAM:");
- gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
- printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
- if (!gd->ram_size)
- hang();
-
- sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
+ printf("Failed to set core voltage! Can't set CPU frequency\n");
}
#endif
--
2.14.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
2018-12-18 11:11 [U-Boot] " karlp at tweak.net.au
@ 2018-12-18 11:20 ` Priit Laes
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Priit Laes @ 2018-12-18 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:11:54AM +0000, karlp at tweak.net.au wrote:
> From: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
>
> This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1
>
> This causes DRAM init failures on (at least)
> * allwinner h3 nanopi-duo2
> * allwinner h2+ orangepi zero v1.1
>
> Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
Tested-By: Priit Laes <plaes@plaes.org>
Tested with A20 Olinuxino Lime2 (where original works too)
and H2+ OrangePi Zero V1.1 (where the original patch caused
breakage).
> ---
>
> Ideally, this should get into 2019.01, so that this release is not
> broken on those targets.
>
> board/sunxi/board.c | 18 ++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/board/sunxi/board.c b/board/sunxi/board.c
> index 917f5b18f6..f022f365e9 100644
> --- a/board/sunxi/board.c
> +++ b/board/sunxi/board.c
> @@ -637,6 +637,13 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
> power_failed |= axp_set_sw(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AXP_SW_ON));
> #endif
> #endif
> + printf("DRAM:");
> + gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
> + printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
> + if (!gd->ram_size)
> + hang();
> +
> + sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
>
> /*
> * Only clock up the CPU to full speed if we are reasonably
> @@ -645,16 +652,7 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
> if (!power_failed)
> clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
> else
> - printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
> - "CPU frequency not set.\n");
> -
> - printf("DRAM:");
> - gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
> - printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
> - if (!gd->ram_size)
> - hang();
> -
> - sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
> + printf("Failed to set core voltage! Can't set CPU frequency\n");
> }
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.14.5
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails"
@ 2018-12-18 10:38 karlp at tweak.net.au
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: karlp at tweak.net.au @ 2018-12-18 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
From: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
This reverts commit a8011eb84dfac5187cebf00ed8bc981bdb5c1fa1
This causes DRAM init failures on (at least)
* allwinner h3 nanopi-duo2
* allwinner h2+ orangepi zero v1.1
Signed-off-by: Karl Palsson <karlp@tweak.net.au>
---
Ideally, this should get into 2019.01, so that this release is not
broken on those targets.
board/sunxi/board.c | 18 ++++++++----------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/sunxi/board.c b/board/sunxi/board.c
index 917f5b18f6..f022f365e9 100644
--- a/board/sunxi/board.c
+++ b/board/sunxi/board.c
@@ -637,6 +637,13 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
power_failed |= axp_set_sw(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AXP_SW_ON));
#endif
#endif
+ printf("DRAM:");
+ gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
+ printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
+ if (!gd->ram_size)
+ hang();
+
+ sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
/*
* Only clock up the CPU to full speed if we are reasonably
@@ -645,16 +652,7 @@ void sunxi_board_init(void)
if (!power_failed)
clock_set_pll1(CONFIG_SYS_CLK_FREQ);
else
- printf("Error setting up the power controller.\n"
- "CPU frequency not set.\n");
-
- printf("DRAM:");
- gd->ram_size = sunxi_dram_init();
- printf(" %d MiB\n", (int)(gd->ram_size >> 20));
- if (!gd->ram_size)
- hang();
-
- sunxi_spl_store_dram_size(gd->ram_size);
+ printf("Failed to set core voltage! Can't set CPU frequency\n");
}
#endif
--
2.14.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-12-31 19:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-12-19 13:00 [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "sunxi: board: Print error after power initialization fails" Andre Przywara
2018-12-29 18:53 ` [U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] " Jagan Teki
2018-12-29 22:10 ` Olliver Schinagl
2018-12-30 4:28 ` Priit Laes
2018-12-30 23:23 ` André Przywara
2018-12-31 10:34 ` Olliver Schinagl
2018-12-31 11:27 ` Michael Trimarchi
2018-12-31 13:10 ` André Przywara
2018-12-31 13:38 ` Michael Trimarchi
2018-12-31 19:31 ` Olliver Schinagl
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-12-18 11:11 [U-Boot] " karlp at tweak.net.au
2018-12-18 11:20 ` Priit Laes
2018-12-18 10:38 karlp at tweak.net.au
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.