>From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] >Sent: Montag, 18. Dezember 2017 11:57 >On 12/18/2017 11:47 AM, Patrick Brünn wrote: >>> From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] >>> Sent: Montag, 18. Dezember 2017 10:17 >>> On 12/18/2017 10:02 AM, linux-kernel-...@beckhoff.com wrote: >>>> From: Patrick Bruenn <p.bru...@beckhoff.com> >>>> >>>> Static variables are not available during board_init_f(). >>> >>> They are, since the board runs from RAM at that point already. >>> >> From reading the README and common/board_f.c I got the impression, >> that dram_init() is called before it's save to access mx53_dram_size. >> And as that change seemed to cure the strange behavior I described >> in [1] and [2], I prepared a patch for my board, which ended up to be >> requested for m53evk and mx53loco, too. > >Technically yes, board_init_f means it runs from FLASH and has no or >minimal storage available. On the MX53 with SPL, it's running from RAM >so it's safe to use static variables too. > Thank's for your explanation.
>>>> 'static uint32_t mx53_dram_size[2];' was used in board specific >>>> dram_init(), dram_init_banksize() and get_effective_memsize() to avoid >>>> multiple calls to get_ram_size(). >>>> >>>> Reused dram initialization functions from arch/arm/mach- >>> imx/mx5/mx53_dram.c >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Bruenn <p.bru...@beckhoff.com> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v2: None >>>> >>>> >>>> Only compile tested with make m53evk_defconfig >>> >>> Are you sure this patch retains the original functionality ? Note the >>> warning ... >> >> Effectively it changes: >> - return mx53_dram_size[0]; >> + return get_ram_size((void *)PHYS_SDRAM_1, 1 << 30); >> >> So, yes I am convinced that get_effective_memsize() still returns only the >size >> of the first dram bank. > >I suspect that will fails on M53 due to it's split-bank configuration. >The board has two DRAM banks with a hole between them. > This is how mx53_dram_size was initialized on m53 before that patch: - mx53_dram_size[0] = get_ram_size((void *)PHYS_SDRAM_1, 1 << 30); - mx53_dram_size[1] = get_ram_size((void *)PHYS_SDRAM_2, 1 << 30); So to me that's, absolutely the same. With the only difference, that get_ram_size(bank0) is called multiple times, now. >> However, I would be fine with just keeping the changes to my board >(cx9020). >> And if anyone has a better idea of what might be the root cause of [1] and >[2], >> I would absolute appreciate any input to that. > >If your board also has two DRAM banks with a hole between them and you >can test if this works fine, then I'm OK with this change. > Yes, cx9020 uses two 512MB banks with 1GB between PHYS_SDRAM_1/2, too. >> Best regards and thanks in advance for any feedback, >> Patrick >> >> [1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-November/313214.html >> [2] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-December/314480.html >> >> --- >> Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG | Managing Director: Dipl. Phys. Hans >Beckhoff >> Registered office: Verl, Germany | Register court: Guetersloh HRA 7075 >> >> > > >-- >Best regards, >Marek Vasut Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG | Managing Director: Dipl. Phys. Hans Beckhoff Registered office: Verl, Germany | Register court: Guetersloh HRA 7075 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
