[U-Boot] [PATCH 7/7][v2] fsl_ifc: Add the workaround for erratum IFC A-003399(enabled on P1010)

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 18, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> Dear Kumar Gala,
> 
> In message <1312555480-13401-8-git-send-email-galak at kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>> From: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggrwal at freescale.com>
>> 
>> Issue: Address masking doesn't work properly.
>> When sum of the base address, defined by BA, and memory bank size,
>> defined by AM, exceeds 4GB (0xffff_ffff) then AMASKn[AM] doesn't mask
>> CSPRn[BA] bits.
>> 
>> Impact:
>> This will impact booting when we are reprogramming CSPR0(BA) and
>> AMASK0(AMASK) while executing from NOR Flash.
>> 
>> Workaround:
>> Re-programming of CSPR(BA) and AMASK is done while not executing from NOR
>> Flash. The code which programs the BA and AMASK is executed from L2-SRAM.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggrwal at freescale.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org>
> 
> This commit introdces new build warnings for the following boards:
> 
> 	P1010RDB_36BIT_NOR                  P1010RDB_NOR
> 	P1010RDB_36BIT_NOR_SECBOOT          P1010RDB_NOR_SECBOOT
> 
> For example:
> 
> Configuring for P1010RDB_NOR - Board: P1010RDB, Options: P1010RDB
> cpu_init_early.c: In function 'cpu_init_early_f':
> cpu_init_early.c:74: warning: 'l2srbar' may be used uninitialized in this function
> 
> 
> Please fix!
> 
> 
> Kumar, Poonam - I'm really p*ssed off.  Both of you have more than
> enough of experience to know that you should not submit
> untested patches.  especially here, where I already had to reject this
> patch because it did not even pass checkpatch:
> 
> I wrote in message <20110804212403.3D53221C695 at gemini.denx.de>:
> 
> | Dear Kumar Gala,
> | 
> | In message <08144324-BE32-4A54-BC2D-B920F18F3D43 at kernel.crashing.org>
> | you wrote:
> | > 
> | > > Kumar,  could you __please__ get used to running your patches
> | > > throuch
> | > > checkpatch __before__ submitting?  Thanks.
> | > 
> | > I try to, but not all of them are by me ;)
> | 
> | I know.  But you submitted them, so you are responsible.
> 
> 
> This level of neglect is really disappointing.
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

If you look at the code I have NO IDEA how to fix this for older GCC.  Gripping at me about this isn't fair.  I'm sure if I hack something to make gcc-4.2 happy I'm going to piss off gcc-4.6.  We can't win.

At some point we have to move off gcc-4.2 as the baseline compiler w/regards to warning and code generation.

- k