From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: York Sun Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:27:48 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] Commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke mpc85xx In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <542C2B84.1090706@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/01/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi York, > > > On 30 September 2014 22:06, York Sun wrote: >> Simon, >> >> I didn't notice until today the commit >> 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke at least T4240QDS. I have >> narrowed down to these two lines in common/board_r.c >> >> initr_barrier, >> initr_malloc, >> >> If I move these two lines below this part >> >> >> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_LOCK) && defined(CONFIG_E500) >> initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, >> #endif >> >> >> U-boot boots OK on T4240QDS (I can see the prompt). But if I move them >> anywhere above this initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, it hangs the core when >> initializing PCI. It may break other mpc85xx platforms but I didn't have >> time to check more today. I haven't figured out why you have to move these >> two lines up. Please take a close look. > > I could adjust this so that the ordering changes only when driver model is used. > > This would be a case of putting '#ifdef CONFIG_DM' around the first > section, then repeating it later with '#ifndef CONFIG_DM'. You can see > that I did this for stdio out of an abundance of caution. > > However, in the interests of supporting driver model on these > platforms I wonder if it might be possible to move the cache logic > earlier. I suspect that the unlock/invalidate should happen before > post-relocation RAM is used. > > Please take a look and let me know if that might be possible. > Otherwise we'll have to go with the fallback. I can change init sequence as far as I put initr_unlock_ram_in_cache before initr_malloc, T4240QDS still boots. I examine the code but don't understand why I have to do so. P4080DS doesn't suffer this issue. I am going to seek some help from Scott and other in-house experts. > > BTW I don't have any of these boards. If there is one that is readily > and cheaply available, or if you have an old one you can send me, I'd > be happy to test on this and take a closer look at driver model > support. I checked but we don't have surplus. This board is relatively new and it sells for $4000. I will keep an eye on it. York