From: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC]: always relocate u-boot before the framebuffer
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:27:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50E55D24.8000809@myspectrum.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130102201725.DC80A20035D@gemini.denx.de>
Hello Tom, Wolfgang,
On 01/02/2013 09:17 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> In message <20130102154854.GC14738@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
>> I think this means we've got people not understanding what the variable
>> IS for. And at the high level, the idea of "lets transition from U-Boot
>> to Linux without a flicker" is good. So, what is the variables we
>> should be using for this, today? Or do we need to add and document
>> more? Or are we all just failing to RTFM here?
I did read the document. Especially "Then system will reserve the
frame buffer address to defined address instead of lcd_setmem"
is a bit misleading, given that nothing is "reserved" it is just assumed
to be free.
> I think the key problem is insufficient documentation of what
> CONFIG_FB_ADDR is intended for (i. e. graphics controllers with
> external video RAM). Eventualy a patch as attached might help?
>
> The idea of "lets transition from U-Boot to Linux without a flicker"
> is as old as PPCBoot (i. e. even predates U-Boot). The standard
> mechanism as implemented should work out of the box, assuming that
> both U-Boot and Linux use the same configuration of the graphics
> controller (resulting in the same size of the needed frame buffer
> memory). And if they use different configurations, you won't be able
> to pass a pre-initialized frame buffer ayway.
>
> The problem Jeroen ran into is/was caused by the fct that U-Boot and
> Linux computed different sizes for the frame buffer. I think this is
> either a bug, or a difference in the configuration, but Jeroen did not
> reply to my question for the reason for this difference yet.
>
I encountered this issue on a omap board / dss. Currently the amount
of video ram is passed with a vram= argument to linux and allocated
at the end of the ram. This is 16Mb by default I have CONFIG_FB_ADDR
set to end of RAM minus that. U-boot then relocates _into_ my frame
buffer and all goes well since I have a small lcd and only use the first
500k or so.
So the intention was to fix that while preserving the frame buffer and I
don't want linux to steal so much memory. The minimum amount of
memory the dss accepts is 2MB though (for reason unknown to me).
Without the fb address set U-boot will allocate it at 1MB before the end
of the ram, since it does not have the 2MB minimum. With the fb address
set to -2MB u-boot will allocate itself over it, hence the patch, do
actually
reserve the frame buffer (well in the most simplistic way, by placing
everything before it).
As Wolfgang suggested, maybe I shouldn't point at U-boot but blame
linux and get rid of the 2MB alignment. I haven't checked yet, but I
don't see why that should not work. So this is resolved for my
case (thanks for the suggestion) for now until I meet
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap at vger.kernel.org/msg80440.html
> diff --git a/README b/README
> index 78f40df..f84108e 100644
> --- a/README
> +++ b/README
> @@ -2695,11 +2695,14 @@ FIT uImage format:
> - Frame Buffer Address:
> CONFIG_FB_ADDR
>
> - Define CONFIG_FB_ADDR if you want to use specific
> - address for frame buffer.
> - Then system will reserve the frame buffer address to
> - defined address instead of lcd_setmem (this function
> - grabs the memory for frame buffer by panel's size).
> + Define CONFIG_FB_ADDR if you want to use specific
> + address for frame buffer. This is typically the case
> + when using a graphics controller has separate video
> + memory. U-Boot will then reserve the frame buffer at
> + the given address instead of dynamically reserving it
> + in system RAM by calling lcd_setmem(), which grabs
> + the memory for the frame buffer depending on the
> + configured panel size.
>
> Please see board_init_f function.
>
Maybe it is clearer as "U-boot will then place the frame buffer at ...
instead of reserving"
Regards,
Jeroen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-03 10:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-29 19:31 [U-Boot] [RFC]: always relocate u-boot before the framebuffer Jeroen Hofstee
2012-12-29 20:10 ` Jeroen Hofstee
2012-12-29 21:50 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-12-29 21:47 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-12-31 14:33 ` Lukasz Majewski
2012-12-31 14:54 ` Wolfgang Denk
2013-01-02 15:48 ` Tom Rini
2013-01-02 20:17 ` Wolfgang Denk
2013-01-03 10:27 ` Jeroen Hofstee [this message]
2013-01-03 10:41 ` Wolfgang Denk
2013-01-03 18:10 ` Jeroen Hofstee
2013-01-03 20:28 ` Wolfgang Denk
2013-01-04 20:29 ` Jeroen Hofstee
2013-01-05 10:07 ` Jeroen Hofstee
2013-01-05 19:18 ` Wolfgang Denk
2013-01-03 10:43 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] VIDEO: better document the correct use of CONFIG_FB_ADDR Wolfgang Denk
2013-01-14 19:29 ` Anatolij Gustschin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50E55D24.8000809@myspectrum.nl \
--to=jeroen@myspectrum.nl \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox