[U-Boot-Users] Re: Interrupt management under PPC4xx platform

[Stefan Roese]

> I found a first problem in the trap_init function. Here is the situation
> before the instruction
> rlwinm r9, r7, 0, 18, 31:
>
> r7 = 0x7fce100
> CFG_MONITOR_LEN = 200*1024
>
> So r9, that contains the target address, is set to 0x2100 and
> consequently
> the vectors are placed starting from there.
> If  change CFG_MONITOR_LEN to 192*1024 they are copied to the right place
> (0x100, anybody corrects me if I'm wrong) and the PIT interrupt is ok.

Wolfgang?

> Nevertheless the problem with Ethernet still occurs:
>
> ### main_loop: bootcmd="tftpboot 0x400000 vmlinux.PPCBoot"
> Hit any key to stop autoboot:  0
> ENET Speed is 10 Mbps - HALF duplex connection
> ARP broadcast 1
>
> With Ethereal I monitor the LAN traffic and I can see that the PC
> correctly
> answers to the ARP request. The SDRAM controller should be ok because I
> imported the initialization code from OpenBIOS. I suspect there are some
> slight differences in the Ethernet controller across the 405xx processors
> (I use a 405EP). I think I should investigate the Ethernet code. Where do
> you suggest me to start?

I agree, SDRAM should be OK!

If you enable the "irq" command (CFG_CMD_IRQ), do you see any irq's
incrementing at all?

This is what I see on a PPC405GP(r):

=> tftp 100000 /tftpboot/pImage
ENET Speed is 100 Mbps - FULL duplex connection
ARP broadcast 1
TFTP from server 10.0.18.190; our IP address is 10.0.18.160
Filename '/tftpboot/pImage'.
Load address: 0x100000
Loading: #################################################################
         #################################################################
         ##########
done
Bytes transferred = 712344 (ade98 hex)
=> irqs

Interrupt-Information:
Nr  Routine   Arg       Count
09  01fc3f84  00000000  0
10  01fc3f84  00000000  0
11  01fc3f84  00000000  0
12  01fc3f84  00000000  1394
13  01fc3f84  00000000  0
14  01fc3f84  00000000  0
15  01fc3f84  00000000  0


Sorry, but I haven't digged into the PPC405EP this deep. It could be, that
there is a difference in the implementation. Please check the above irq test
at first...


Best regards,
Stefan.