On 8/9/20 3:16 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> Am 9. August 2020 18:35:45 MESZ schrieb Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com>:
>> On 8/9/20 12:14 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>> Hello Sean,
>>>
>>> while trying to understand the handling of SMP I stumbled of this
>> question:
>>>
>>> Why did you define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR as an odd number on the
>> MAIX
>>> in commit a7c81fc85326 ("riscv: Add Sipeed Maix support") while the
>>> other RISC-V boards use an even number:
>>>
>>> include/configs/sifive-fu540.h:29:
>>> 29 | #define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR (CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE +
>> SZ_2M)
>>>
>>> include/configs/qemu-riscv.h:22:
>>> 22 | #define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR (CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE +
>> SZ_2M)
>>>
>>> include/configs/sipeed-maix.h:13:
>>> 13 | #define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR 0x803FFFFF
>>>
>>> I always thought that RISC-V stack pointers must be 16 byte aligned:
>>>
>>> Cf. https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/riscv-calling.pdf
>>>
>>> "In the standard RISC-V calling convention, the stack grows downward
>> and
>>> the stack pointer is always kept 16-byte aligned."
>>
>> Because that is the top of (non-ai) ram. And it gets 16-byte aligned by
>> call_board_init_f anyway.
>>
>> --Sean
>
> Top of RAM is the place to which we want to relocate U-Boot. But furthermore
> this value minus a multiple of16KiB is also used for the stack lication of
> the secondary CPU.
>
> Shouldn't we better use the same definition as the other boards?
>
Sorry, I misspoke earlier, it's actually the top of ram minus 2M. If you
would like to use a different value, it's fine to me, but I don't think
it changes much.
--Sean
