David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 02:03:16PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Machine "ref405ep" maps its flash memory at address 2^32 - image size. >> Image size is rounded up to the next multiple of 64KiB. Useless, >> because pflash_cfi02_realize() fails with "failed to read the initial >> flash content" unless the rounding is a no-op. >> >> If the image size exceeds 0x80000 Bytes, we overlap first SRAM, then >> other stuff. No idea how that would play out, but useful outcomes >> seem unlikely. >> >> Map the flash memory at fixed address 0xFFF80000 with size 512KiB, >> regardless of image size, to match the physical hardware. >> >> Machine "taihu" maps its boot flash memory similarly. The code even >> has a comment /* XXX: should check that size is 2MB */, followed by >> disabled code to adjust the size to 2MiB regardless of image size. >> >> Its code to map its application flash memory looks the same, except >> there the XXX comment asks for 32MiB, and the code to adjust the size >> isn't disabled. Note that pflash_cfi02_realize() fails with "failed >> to read the initial flash content" for images smaller than 32MiB. >> >> Map the boot flash memory at fixed address 0xFFE00000 with size 2MiB, >> to match the physical hardware. Delete dead code from application >> flash mapping, and simplify some. >> >> Cc: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> Acked-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> >> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> > > I'm assuming because this is in a series I'm not otherwise CCed on > that this is going in through someone else's tree. Let me know if you > want me take it through mine.
I intend to take the complete series through my tree unless a maintainer objects.
