[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/4] mips: add base support for atheros ath79 based SOCs

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 12:17:41 PM, Wills Wang wrote:
[...]
> >> "lowlevel_init.S" can't be dropped.
> > 
> > Thank you very much for all the effort you put into investigating and
> > explaining why this SRAM area cannot be used ... not. From my side,
> > consider this patch to be NAKed.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Marek Vasut
> 
> "lowlevel_init.S" can't be entirely dropped, there are three main
> reasons for this.

Right, so I checked how these are performed and whether these can or cannot 
be done from C code.

> 1. Chip has an original issue, need reset "WLAN"  three times to avoid
> it when power up.

 26 /* These three wlan reset will avoid original issue, 
 27 so full chip reset isn't needed here. */
 28     set_reg(0xb806001c, 0x00c06b30)
 29     nop
 30     set_reg(0xb806001c, 0x00c06330)
 31     nop
 32     set_reg(0xb806001c, 0x00c06b30)
 33     nop
 34     set_reg(0xb806001c, 0x00c06330)
 35     nop
 36 reset_wlan:
 37     set_reg(0xb806001c, 0x00c06b30)
 38     nop
 39     set_reg(0xb806001c, 0x00c06330)
 40     nop

Yes, these can be done from C code.

> 2. Need reset RTC and force to wake MAC, or chip can't work .

 73 /* RTC reset */
 74     set_reg(0x1810704c, 0x00000003)
 75     nop
 76     nop
 77     set_reg(0x18107040, 0x00000000)
 78     nop
 79     nop
 80     set_reg(0x18107040, 0x00000001)
 81     nop

DTTO.

> 3. Need initialise PLL clock for CPU/DDR/AHB, the default clock is
> 25MHz, the interval from
> power-up to printout is about 5s.

The PLL configuration is again a set of writes to some random registers.
This can again be done from the C code.

> So, assembler code could not be avoided even using SRAM for c stack.

I am not convinced, see above. Please show me where exactly is the assembly
code imperative. I simply do not see it.

> Now that chipmaker don't open SRAM of this chip and recommend DDR for
> initial stack, i think
> that using DDR should be more consolidated.

I do not care what the chip maker says unless there is an explicit explanation
why they require that. Most often, these sorts of "limitations" are in place
only because the chipmaker has incompetent software engineers.

So I would like to see either the SRAM or locked cacheline used for stack and
then lowlevel init converted into proper C code unless there is an explicit
explanation why this can not be done. And by explicit I mean for example a
snippet of code which cannot be converted into C code. Note that asm volatile
can still be used to contain such small bits of assembler code if needed be.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut