[U-Boot] Commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke mpc85xx

[Simon Glass]

Hi York,

On 1 October 2014 10:27, York Sun <yorksun at freescale.com> wrote:

> On 10/01/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi York,
> >
> >
> > On 30 September 2014 22:06, York Sun <yorksun at freescale.com> 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.
>

Gosh. Is there something else relatively common in the PPC world that sells
for $100-200?

Regards,
Simon