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

[york sun]

On 01/25/2016 10:12 PM, Mingkai Hu wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----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.

True. But if by mistake both errata are enabled, it will be really hard to
troubleshoot. It costs almost nothing to check if both macros are defined.

> 
>> 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.

Please send the update.

York