Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx/GRx fix memory size calculation

[Valentine <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:06:11PM +0300, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:50:13PM +0300, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>>>> I was just going to submit a patch for that too.
>>>> Indeed, the denali_fixup_memsize() miscalculated a couple of address
>>>> field widths. We were lucky to eventually get the right result,
>>>> because the effect of the first error was killed by the other one.
>>>> According to the AMCC 440EPX/GRX user manual,
>>>> the Chip Select width is always fixed at 1 bit no matter
>>>> what is actually read from register DDR_10.
>>>> The workaround is to use a predefined chipselect value for 440EPx/GRx.
>>>> Also, setting the REDUC bit (REDUC = 1) enables 32-bit data path.
>>>> If REDUC = 0, full data path of 64 bits is used.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>>> I've been looking over this one a bit more.  At the moment, I'm inclined
>>> to queue this up in my -next branch.  I would like to see if Mikhail
>>> could test it though, and have Valentine answer the question in the hard
>>> wired part.
>> I've been looking at the docs once again and actually I couldn't find an  
>>   explanation there. And I don't have that e-mail from AMCC support that 
>> I got a while back regarding the issue anymore.
>> There might have been some misunderstanding.
>> The docs (PPC440EPX UM 19.2 Device Address Mapping) say that the chip  
>> select field width is always fixed at one bit, but this doesn't actually  
>>  mean that there's always one chip select used.
>> The patch works fine on Sequoia and another Sequoia-like board with 1GB  
>> RAM installed, but it might not work with 2GB RAM. I've tried to play  
>> with DDR0_10 settings and Sequoia works fine regardless of what's  
>> actually written to DDR0_10.
>> So, probably the best way would be to fix that in u-boot
>> amcc/sequoia/sdram.c by doing mtsdram(DDR0_10, 0x00000100); instead of  
>> mtsdram(DDR0_10, 0x00000300);
>> Sorry, for confusion, but after reviewing the docs, I think that
>> only REDUC interpretation has to be fixed. The chips select part should  
>> be fixed in u-boot sdram code for Sequoia as was originally proposed by  
>> Mikhail.
> 
> Ok, so we're back to using Mikhail's original patch then?
> 
> josh

Yes, but until u-boot is fixed this will break Sequoia/Rainier support.
Thanks,
Valentine.