[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Felix Radensky]

Hi,

All FSL MPC85xx boards define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN as 256K
although actual size of u-boot binary is 512K. XES Xpedite boards seem to do
the right thing.

I was wandering whether CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN for 85xx boards
can be defined in terms of CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE, similar to AMCC
boards ?

#define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN    (0xFFFFFFFF - CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE + 1)

Felix.

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:

> Hi,
>
> All FSL MPC85xx boards define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN as 256K
> although actual size of u-boot binary is 512K. XES Xpedite boards  
> seem to do
> the right thing.
>
> I was wandering whether CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN for 85xx boards
> can be defined in terms of CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE, similar to AMCC
> boards ?
>
> #define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN    (0xFFFFFFFF -  
> CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE + 1)

I don't have any issue w/such a fix but would like to know what the  
implication is of having thing set the way we do on the FSL boards.   
Is there some bug we'd hit?

- k

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Felix Radensky]

Hi, Kumar

I don't see any immediate problem with current FSL definitions
except they are confusing.

I think my proposal will not work on platforms like MPC8572,
MPC8536, and P2020DS where  TEXT_BASE is defined as
0xeff80000 instead of 0xfff80000. Can you please  explain the
reason why TEXT_BASE defined differently for these boards.

Thanks.

Felix.

Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> All FSL MPC85xx boards define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN as 256K
>> although actual size of u-boot binary is 512K. XES Xpedite boards 
>> seem to do
>> the right thing.
>>
>> I was wandering whether CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN for 85xx boards
>> can be defined in terms of CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE, similar to AMCC
>> boards ?
>>
>> #define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN    (0xFFFFFFFF - 
>> CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE + 1)
>
> I don't have any issue w/such a fix but would like to know what the 
> implication is of having thing set the way we do on the FSL boards.  
> Is there some bug we'd hit?
I don't think there's some bug
>
> - k

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Kumar Gala]

Its defined differently on these boards (and all our future board  
ports) since after relocation and such we have the FLASH @  
0xe800_0000.  And thus the u-boot image is at @ 0xeff8_0000.

- k

On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:44 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:

> Hi, Kumar
>
> I don't see any immediate problem with current FSL definitions
> except they are confusing.
>
> I think my proposal will not work on platforms like MPC8572,
> MPC8536, and P2020DS where  TEXT_BASE is defined as
> 0xeff80000 instead of 0xfff80000. Can you please  explain the
> reason why TEXT_BASE defined differently for these boards.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Felix.
>
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> All FSL MPC85xx boards define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN as 256K
>>> although actual size of u-boot binary is 512K. XES Xpedite boards  
>>> seem to do
>>> the right thing.
>>>
>>> I was wandering whether CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN for 85xx boards
>>> can be defined in terms of CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE, similar to AMCC
>>> boards ?
>>>
>>> #define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN    (0xFFFFFFFF -  
>>> CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE + 1)
>>
>> I don't have any issue w/such a fix but would like to know what the  
>> implication is of having thing set the way we do on the FSL  
>> boards.  Is there some bug we'd hit?
> I don't think there's some bug
>>
>> - k

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Felix Radensky]

Hi, Kumar
Kumar Gala wrote:
> Its defined differently on these boards (and all our future board 
> ports) since after relocation and such we have the FLASH @ 
> 0xe800_0000.  And thus the u-boot image is at @ 0xeff8_0000.

Thanks for the explanation. Out of curiosity, I've tried to set FLASH 
physical address on MPC8536DS
to 0xf800_0000 and modify TEXT_BASE to 0xfff8_0000. But that resulted in 
non-bootable system
(no u-boot messages at all).

What did I miss ?

Thanks.

Felix.
>
> - k
>
> On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:44 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:
>
>> Hi, Kumar
>>
>> I don't see any immediate problem with current FSL definitions
>> except they are confusing.
>>
>> I think my proposal will not work on platforms like MPC8572,
>> MPC8536, and P2020DS where  TEXT_BASE is defined as
>> 0xeff80000 instead of 0xfff80000. Can you please  explain the
>> reason why TEXT_BASE defined differently for these boards.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Felix.
>>
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> All FSL MPC85xx boards define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN as 256K
>>>> although actual size of u-boot binary is 512K. XES Xpedite boards 
>>>> seem to do
>>>> the right thing.
>>>>
>>>> I was wandering whether CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN for 85xx boards
>>>> can be defined in terms of CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE, similar to AMCC
>>>> boards ?
>>>>
>>>> #define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN    (0xFFFFFFFF - 
>>>> CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE + 1)
>>>
>>> I don't have any issue w/such a fix but would like to know what the 
>>> implication is of having thing set the way we do on the FSL boards.  
>>> Is there some bug we'd hit?
>> I don't think there's some bug
>>>
>>> - k
>

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation. Out of curiosity, I've tried to set  
> FLASH physical address on MPC8536DS
> to 0xf800_0000 and modify TEXT_BASE to 0xfff8_0000. But that  
> resulted in non-bootable system
> (no u-boot messages at all).
>
> What did I miss ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Felix.

Did you get all the LAWs, TLB, etc associated with moving the FLASH  
address?

- k

[U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards

[Felix Radensky]

Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Felix Radensky wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the explanation. Out of curiosity, I've tried to set FLASH 
>> physical address on MPC8536DS
>> to 0xf800_0000 and modify TEXT_BASE to 0xfff8_0000. But that resulted 
>> in non-bootable system
>> (no u-boot messages at all).
>>
>> What did I miss ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Felix.
>
> Did you get all the LAWs, TLB, etc associated with moving the FLASH 
> address?
I think so. TLB and LAW functions use CONFIG_SYS_FLASH_BASE_PHYS, which
I set to 0xf0000000 instead of 0xe0000000. Maybe I've overridden some 
other mappings ?

Felix.