[U-Boot] [PATCH] 8313erdb: Set guarded bit on BAT that covers the end of the address space.

[Liu Dave-R63238]

> It seems like the root cause of this problem:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/53025/
> match=nasty+gunzip+problem+mpc8313e+rdb
> 
> As a MPC8313E(-RDB) user I'm happy no more checkstops will 
> occur for some kernels. I'm even more happy I took over the 
> BAT settings from MPC8315ERDB.h for our custom MPC8313 board 
> (MPC8315ERDB.h doesn't have this problem as far as i can tell)

[snip]

> Scott Wood wrote:
> > This board currently sets DBAT6 to cover all of the final 256MiB of 
> > address space; however, not all of this space is covered by 
> a device.  
> > In particular, flash sits at 0xfe000000-0xfe7fffff, and nothing is 
> > mapped at the far end of the address space.
> > 
> > In zlib, there is a loop that references p[-1] if p is non-NULL.  
> > Under some circumstances, this leads to the CPU 
> speculatively loading 
> > from
> > 0xfffffff8 if p is NULL.  This leads to a machine check.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
> > ---
> > Note that there are likely other board with the same issue.
> > 
> >  include/configs/MPC8313ERDB.h |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/configs/MPC8313ERDB.h 
> > b/include/configs/MPC8313ERDB.h index 0ef4eba..21aedee 100644
> > --- a/include/configs/MPC8313ERDB.h
> > +++ b/include/configs/MPC8313ERDB.h
> > @@ -544,7 +544,7 @@
> >  #define CONFIG_SYS_IBAT5U	(CONFIG_SYS_IMMR | BATU_BL_256M 
> | BATU_VS | BATU_VP)
> >  
> >  /* SDRAM @ 0xF0000000, stack in DCACHE 0xFDF00000 & FLASH 
> @ 0xFE000000 */
> > -#define CONFIG_SYS_IBAT6L	(0xF0000000 | BATL_PP_10)
> > +#define CONFIG_SYS_IBAT6L	(0xF0000000 | BATL_PP_10 | 
> BATL_GUARDEDSTORAGE)
> >  #define CONFIG_SYS_IBAT6U	(0xF0000000 | BATU_BL_256M | 
> BATU_VS | BATU_VP)
> >  

Scott/Kim,

We still have the same issue on MPC8349EMDS, MPC8349ITX and sbc8349,
But the 8360EMDS, 8315ERDB, 837xEMDS(RDB) have not this issue.
It is strange we leave the Flash as non-guarded attribute at 8349 board
and 8313ERDB,
When did we leave them to non-guarded?

Thanks, Dave