[U-Boot] [PATCH] armv8/ls1043a: Implement workaround for erratum A009660

[Mingkai Hu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: york sun
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 1:44 AM
> To: Mingkai Hu; Mingkai Hu; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] armv8/ls1043a: Implement workaround for erratum
> A009660
> 
> On 01/21/2016 11:50 PM, Mingkai Hu wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mingkai Hu
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:18 AM
> >> To: york sun; Mingkai Hu; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH] armv8/ls1043a: Implement workaround for erratum
> >> A009660
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: york sun
> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:21 AM
> >>> To: Mingkai Hu; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >>> Cc: Mingkai Hu
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] armv8/ls1043a: Implement workaround for erratum
> >>> A009660
> >>>
> >>> On 01/19/2016 10:44 PM, Mingkai Hu wrote:
> >>>> From: Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu at nxp.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Memory controller performance is not optimal with default internal
> >>>> target queue register value, write required value for optimal DDR
> >>>> performance.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu at nxp.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c           | 13
> +++++++++++++
> >>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/config.h |  1 +
> >>>>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c
> >>>> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c
> >>>> index 23d6b73..485f5cd 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/soc.c
> >>>> @@ -210,6 +210,18 @@ static void erratum_a009929(void)  #endif  }
> >>>>
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * This erratum requires setting a value to eddrtqcr1 to
> >>>> + * optimal the DDR performance.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static void erratum_a009660(void)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ERRATUM_A009660
> >>>> +	u32 *eddrtqcr1 = (void *)CONFIG_SYS_FSL_SCFG_ADDR + 0x20c;
> >>>> +	out_be32(eddrtqcr1, 0x63b20042);
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>  void fsl_lsch2_early_init_f(void)
> >>>>  {
> >>>>  	struct ccsr_cci400 *cci = (struct ccsr_cci400
> >>>> *)CONFIG_SYS_CCI400_ADDR; @@ -232,6 +244,7 @@ void
> >>>> fsl_lsch2_early_init_f(void)
> >>>>
> >>>>  	/* Erratum */
> >>>>  	erratum_a009929();
> >>>> +	erratum_a009660();
> >>>>  }
> >>>>  #endif
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/config.h
> >>>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/config.h
> >>>> index 49b113d..66399b2 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/config.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/config.h
> >>>> @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@
> >>>>  #define GICC_BASE		0x01402000
> >>>>
> >>>>  #define CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ERRATUM_A009929
> >>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ERRATUM_A009660
> >>>>  #else
> >>>>  #error SoC not defined
> >>>>  #endif
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> NACK.
> >>>
> >>> Erratum A009660 is cancelled. The workaround is integrated into
> A008514.
> >>> Please revise workaround for A008514. Besides, you are using ARMv7
> >>> offset for ARMv8.
> >>> Please check if this workaround applies to LS2 SoCs. While you are
> >>> on it, please add a comment to LS1 workaround with the word A008514
> >>> so we can grep it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi York,
> >>
> >> I discussed with design team and got the erratum in LS1043A CE before
> >> preparing the patch. The value (0x63b20042) is the same one described
> >> in
> >> A008514 of LS1021A and the register offset of LS1043A is same with
> >> the one used for LS1021A which is in the SCFG space.
> >>
> >> I will double check with the design team about if the erraum number
> >> is still A009660 and keep you in the loop.
> >>
> >> For LS2, I got the A008514 in the LS2085A CE, but 1. The value is
> >> 63b2_0002 which is different from the value used on ls1043 platform.
> >> 2. The address is in DCFG space.
> >> 3. I did not get the A008514 in the LS2080A CE (RevD).
> >>
> >> So it's better to confirm with design team about the value used and
> >> the consistence between LS2085A and LS2080A.
> >>
> > York,
> >
> > As discussed with design team, the erratum A009660 is the correct one
> and the value/offset is also correct.
> >
> > Do you prefer to submit a new patch to fix ls2085 or fix it on this
> patch?
> >
> 
> Mingkai,
> 
> If the erratum A009660 is republished, and A008514 is updated for
> LS2085/LS1021, you can keep this patch, but adding a check to make sure
> they are not both enabled. 

Different platform uses different Errata definition, so they are not both enabled.

> Please also update workaround for A008514 to
> reflect the latest value.
>
The value for LS2 A008514 is correct.
 
> Please also put a comment for the offset of eddrtqcr1. It is really
> confusing when different offset is used in the same file for LS2080 and
> LS1043.
> 
Sure. I will add it.

Thanks,
Mingkai