[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 5/6] sunxi: add code for recalculating the DRAM size in U-Boot

Andre Przywara
2018-03-29T12:21:38Z

Hi,

On 29/03/18 10:37, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:31:51PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> 于 2018年3月28日 GMT+08:00 下午7:28:07, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> 写到:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:11:04PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 于 2018年3月26日 GMT+08:00 下午3:06:33, Maxime Ripard
>>> <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> 写到:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 05:41:43PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 于 2018年3月23日 GMT+08:00 下午5:40:41, Maxime Ripard
>>>>> <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> 写到:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:18:56PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>>>>>> The get_ram_size() function in U-Boot can only deal with memory
>>>>> size
>>>>>>>> smaller than 2GiB. To enable the support of 3GiB DRAM on newer
>>>>> 64-bit
>>>>>>>> SoCs, an alternative way to detect DRAM size is needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just fixing get_ram_size then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if it's fixed it won't support 3GiB DRAM at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> It has an assumption that the size is pow of 2.
>>>
>>> I guess this would be fixable too? (or one could create a variant
>>> without that assumption).
>>
>> I don't think its principle allows such kind of fix, as it just
>> checks writing then reading at some offset that is pow if 2.
>
> You could do have a bunch of algorithm actually. One would be to write
> the address in memory and try to detect where exactly it starts to
> loop.
>
> You could do a bisection in the opposite direction once you settled
> for the upper limit (so you would have for example a workable 2G, a
> non-workable 4G, and then you try intervals that you always divide by
> two, so testing then 3G (that works), then halfway between 3G and 4G,
> etc.
>
>> For hacking it, see my implementation in v1, which assumes the
>> only size supported bigger than 2GiB is 3GiB (which is
>> acceptable on sunxi, but might not work on other platforms).
>>
>> As Andre said, that function has another big problem -- it detects
>> memory with writing to it. This is risky.
>
> How is it risky when it's done by the SPL?

Originally that was my confusion as well: It's not the SPL calling that
function. The DRAM controller init function in there knows very
precisely how much DRAM we have, but we don't communicate this to U-Boot
proper. So U-Boot *proper* goes ahead and probes the DRAM. This means it
could step into secure memory, for instance. On sunxi64 we have the ATF
running between SPL and U-Boot, also all kind of secure payloads could
already have been registered.
So I wonder if it would be easier to somehow pass on this *one* word of
information between SPL and U-Boot proper to avoid calling this function
altogether?

Cheers,
Andre.