[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix unreliable detection of DRAM size on Orange Pi 3

[Siarhei Siamashka]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 22:07:43 +0200
Ondřej Jirman <megous at megous.com> wrote:

> Hi Jagan,
> 
> can you please apply this patch to the sunxi tree, so that it
> doesn't get lost.
> 
> thank you,
> 	Ondrej
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:39:42AM +0200, megous hlavni wrote:
> > From: Ondrej Jirman <megous at megous.com>
> > 
> > Orange Pi 3 has 2 GiB of DRAM, that sometime get misdetected
> > as 4 GiB, due to false negative result from mctl_mem_matches()
> > when detecting number of column address bits. This leads to
> > u-boot detecting more address bits than there are and the
> > boot process hangs shortly after.
> > 
> > In mctl_mem_matches() we need to wait for each write to finish,
> > separately. Without this, the check is not reliable for some
> > unknown reason, probably having to do with unpredictable memory
> > access ordering.
> > 
> > Patch was made with help from André Przywara, who noticed that
> > my original idea about detection failing due to read-back from
> > cache without involving DRAM was false, because data cache is
> > still of at the time of the DRAM size autodetection.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Jirman <megous at megous.com>
> > Cc: André Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_helpers.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_helpers.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_helpers.c
> > index 239ab421a8..6dba448638 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_helpers.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/dram_helpers.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ bool mctl_mem_matches(u32 offset)
> >  {
> >  	/* Try to write different values to RAM at two addresses */
> >  	writel(0, CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE);
> > +	dsb();
> >  	writel(0xaa55aa55, (ulong)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE + offset);
> >  	dsb();
> >  	/* Check if the same value is actually observed when reading back */
> > -- 

Hi!

This looks like resurfacing of the old problem, which did not get a
complete fix back in 2016:
   https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-April/251803.html

Now the main question is whether the DSB instruction's barrier
magic is really required here or maybe it's just a timing issue.

Could you please experiment with this problem a little bit more?

 1. What if you just move this second DSB instruction after the
    second write and have two of them there? Does this also make
    the problem disappear?

 2. What if you just replace DSB with udelay(1) / udelay(10) /
    udelay(100)? Does this make the problem disappear?


I suspect that we may be dealing with some sort of buffering in
the DRAM controller itself and the only reason why DSB helps is
that it introduces some delay because it's a rather slow
instruction.

-- 
Best regards,
Siarhei Siamashka