[U-Boot-Users] 83xx address translation: is it really necessary?

[Timur Tabi]

Kumar Gala wrote:

> Is the physical memory map the same on the ITX as it is on the 8349EMDS?

Beats me.

The EMDS has this for the BATs:

#define CFG_PCI1_MEM_BASE	0x80000000
#define CFG_PCI1_MEM_PHYS	CFG_PCI1_MEM_BASE
#define CFG_PCI1_MEM_SIZE	0x10000000	/* 256M */
#define CFG_PCI1_MMIO_BASE	0x90000000
#define CFG_PCI1_MMIO_PHYS	CFG_PCI1_MMIO_BASE
#define CFG_PCI1_MMIO_SIZE	0x10000000	/* 256M */
#define CFG_PCI1_IO_BASE	0x00000000
#define CFG_PCI1_IO_PHYS	0xE2000000
#define CFG_PCI1_IO_SIZE	0x00100000	/* 1M */

#define CFG_PCI2_MEM_BASE	0xA0000000
#define CFG_PCI2_MEM_PHYS	CFG_PCI2_MEM_BASE
#define CFG_PCI2_MEM_SIZE	0x10000000	/* 256M */
#define CFG_PCI2_MMIO_BASE	0xB0000000
#define CFG_PCI2_MMIO_PHYS	CFG_PCI2_MMIO_BASE
#define CFG_PCI2_MMIO_SIZE	0x10000000	/* 256M */
#define CFG_PCI2_IO_BASE	0x00000000
#define CFG_PCI2_IO_PHYS	0xE2100000
#define CFG_PCI2_IO_SIZE	0x00100000	/* 1M */

Question #1: Why is CFG_PCI1_MEM_PHYS the same as CFG_PCI1_MEM_BASE, but CFG_PCI1_IO_PHYS is not the same as CFG_PCI1_IO_BASE?

I'm porting the ITX support from an older U-Boot (1.1.3) that was written by another group.  This is what they have:

#define CFG_PCI1_MEM_BASE	0x80000000
#define CFG_PCI1_MEM_PHYS	CFG_PCI1_MEM_BASE
#define CFG_PCI1_MEM_SIZE	0x20000000	/* 512M */
#define CFG_PCI1_IO_BASE	0x00000000
#define CFG_PCI1_IO_PHYS	0xe2000000
#define CFG_PCI1_IO_SIZE	0x1000000	/* 16M */

#define CFG_PCI2_MEM_BASE	0xA0000000
#define CFG_PCI2_MEM_PHYS	CFG_PCI2_MEM_BASE
#define CFG_PCI2_MEM_SIZE	0x20000000	/* 512M */
#define CFG_PCI2_IO_BASE	0x00000000
#define CFG_PCI2_IO_PHYS	0xe3000000
#define CFG_PCI2_IO_SIZE	0x1000000	/* 16M */

As you can see, some numbers are different, and some are missing.  I had to guess what value to use for CFG_PCI1_MMIO_BASE, etc.

I don't know why the PCI sizes are larger on the ITX than on the EMDS.  I have no documentation that tells me what these numbers should be.



-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale