Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert HAFDBS changes

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2403 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 06:38:40PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, 10:33 am Tom Rini, <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 01:22:37PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Pierre-Clément Tosi wrote:
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 01:23:51PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> > > > > As discussed this series reverts the HAFDBS changes that caused an
> > issue
> > > > > on AC5/AC5X. I think there are some improvements that can be made to
> > the
> > > > > initial memory map for the AC5/AC5X but so far nothing I've found
> > makes
> > > > > it compatible with the HAFDBS changes.
> > > >
> > > > Would you mind briefly explaining what those issues are and/or point
> > me to the
> > > > discussion where it was decided to revert these patches?
> > > >
> > > > The feature is quite useful for users of CONFIG_CMO_BY_VA_ONLY, to
> > speed up the
> > > > boot sequence: instead of reverting these patches altogether, would a
> > reasonable
> > > > alternative be to put them behind a build option?
> > > >
> > > > Also, could you confirm that the "initial memory map" you are
> > referring to above
> > > > only describes actual memory as, IIRC, some boards were using mappings
> > **much**
> > > > larger than their DRAM address space?
> > >
> > > The most details are in this thread:
> > >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFOYHZC_Dveax85n0fLr5BFyZcLqsvUssn=J0oHyvN75bTaCUw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > with some follow-up in:
> > >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFOYHZB7jJWwD24oWzx6u55w2whHYjK56f=QyN0LWU4Z8dSP+Q@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Checking to see if you have any feedback for these platforms? I would
> > like to have them working again one way or another in v2024.01, thanks.
> >
> 
> Either this series or
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20231018205358.1557234-1-judge.packham@gmail.com/
> will get the AC5X boards back working. I'm out of other ideas but happy to
> test patches.

Following up here on the cover letter as well that I've applied the
revert for now. I'm happy to revert the revert if we can get the AC5X
platforms fixed, and perhaps a little documentation about what was going
wrong as I believe the other thread at least hinted that other platforms
might be doing a workaround as well but didn't spell out why.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]