Dear Yann Vernier, On 06.07.2012 11:14, Yann Vernier wrote: > On Friday 06 July 2012 10:43:40 you wrote: >>>>> =((CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE+CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_SIZE-0x10000)<<(22-16) | \ + >>>>> (CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE>>(16-12) | 0x00e)) >>>> >>>> ugh ... magic. Will it work for every possible setting? >>>> How about one setting CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE != 0x0? I the base address >>>> related to register content in any way? >>> >>> It's not a guarded secret, although it is far from obvious where to find >>> it. One way is micrel.com - Products - Ethernet ICs / ARM based SOC's - >>> HW Design Kit. Within that zip file, >>> KS8695X_EVAL_HW_RV4.0_DP/RegDescription/KS8695X Register Description >>> v1.1.pdf >> >> With this information I understand your equation. I think you should not >> do it that way. You may solve the current state (all devices have 8 >> column, 4 bank and 32 bit). But one adding (well, if that will ever come >> ;) another board with different setting will get in trouble here and >> need to find another solution. Maybe more sophisticated by doing another >> equation. >> >> I think a straight forward solution here would be to add another special >> define in the board config, write the magic number down there and maybe >> describe what the number stands for. You can then just use the >> previously defined value in start.S. >> You may have a look for at91 lowlevel_init, there it is done that way. > > I shall. In fact, I may already have this problem as I need to verify the > timing on the flash memory (I have the demo board, not a cm4xxx), and the > reason I work on this is that we may design another board soon. > > I'm a little hesitant about how to fit these changes together, though; for > now > I have three barely separated patches, but overhauling all those magic > numbers > changes them all yet again. These three patches are all necessary to make my > u-boot work in the first place, while fixing the magic values is a code > cleanup > change - probably editing arch/arm/include/asm/arch-ks8695/platform.h which > currently contains a few meaningless constants like KS8695_SDRAM_START and a > consistent misspelling of definitions. > > Could I save the value decoding and corresponding configuration changes for a > fourth patch?
I'm fine with this suggestion. So the next question is who would pull it in mainline? Since this is arm related I guess Albert is the one in question. I think these three patches are all fixes to get a board already in mainline working. So I think we should try to get these in -rc1. Albert, can you please comment? Best regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
