From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Schocher Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:22:06 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 31/31] 83xx, kmeter1: added bootcount feature In-Reply-To: <20090128201206.f9b4959d.kim.phillips@freescale.com> References: <4980282E.3020109@denx.de> <20090128201206.f9b4959d.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Message-ID: <4981753E.2080205@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Kim, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:41:02 +0100 > Heiko Schocher wrote: > >> diff --git a/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c b/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_LIMIT >> + >> +#if !defined(CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR) >> +#define CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR 0x11bff8 > > it's CONFIG_SYS and magic number, but now that I've found it, sorry, I > can't accept this - not all 83xx have a QE and thus this MURAM. Even Hmm.. maybe we make this dependent on CONFIG_QE ? > if they did this would require changing the device tree muram node > property, to indicate its size has shrunk 8 bytes, right? In fact, not Yes, we should do this. > all QE's have 48Kbytes of MURAM either - the 8323 only has 16Kbytes. Thats why you could define it with CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR, where exactly this 8 bytes are. > Problem is, I don't know of a better place to put the > bootcount. Ideas? I thought to make it as on 82xx (using parameter Ram of SCC1), because UCC5 should be compatible to the SCC1 see 8360ERM.pdf Table 19-11 on page 19-20. But on the 8360, after reset, the complete parameter RAM is initialized with 0 ... so that didn't work. Other places I couldn't found for this feature :-( bye Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany