From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [213.79.90.228])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34DCDE120
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:37:23 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <49F08636.3080007@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:16:06 +0400
From: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC440EPx SDRAM width
References: <49F06ECC.7030904@harris.com>
	<20090423134538.GB3825@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
	<200904231605.22912.sr@denx.de> <49F07DF0.5020207@ru.mvista.com>
	<20090423145915.GC3825@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090423145915.GC3825@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 06:40:48PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
>> Stefan Roese wrote:
>>> On Thursday 23 April 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:36:12AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>>>>> There is an error in the way ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize calculates
>>>>> memory size.  When testing the DDR_REDUC bit, the polarity is
>>>>> backwards.  A "1" implies 32-bit wide memory while a "0" implies
>>>>> 64-bit wide memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a 32-bit wide system, this bug causes twice the memory to be
>>>>> reported, leading to boot failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco <sfalco@harris.com>
>>>> So we had a previous patch for this, and a very long discussion on what the
>>>> right solution was.  Either we never came to a resolution, or I have just
>>>> forgotten what it was.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan, Valentine, do either of you remember?
>> The patch will break sequia/rainier since u-boot doesn't set the number  
>> of chipselects correctly for them. IIRC, the last conversation didn't  
>> come to any conclusion. We sort of wanted to fix that regardless of  
>> whether we had corrected u-boot or not.
>>
>> Could we use a "model" property to distinguish between the "real"  
>> sequoia/rainier and other custom boards?
>> If yes, we could add a workaround the ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize to  
>> hardcode the chipselect number to 1 for sequoia/rainier.
> 
> We could do that perhaps, yes.  In cases where the board has a newer U-Boot
> with the fix already, it shouldn't really cause any harm, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Thanks,
Val

> 
> josh