On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Valentine Barshak wrote: > 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. > > Stefan, could you please take a look?
I'll apply the U-Boot patch today. But as Josh pointed out, we should try to find a way for the bootwrapper to work in all cases. Best regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
