[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 19/20] configs: Don't use SPI_FLASH_BAR as default
Vignesh R
vigneshr at ti.com
Thu Jan 31 13:47:14 UTC 2019
On 31/01/19 7:06 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
[...]
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_mini_qspi_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1232_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1254_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1275_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1275_revB_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1751_xm015_dc1_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1751_xm016_dc2_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zc1751_xm018_dc4_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu100_revC_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu102_rev1_0_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu102_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu102_revB_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu104_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu104_revC_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu106_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/xilinx_zynqmp_zcu111_revA_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_cc108_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_cse_qspi_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_dlc20_rev1_0_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_microzed_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_minized_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_z_turn_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zc702_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zc706_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zc770_xm010_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zc770_xm013_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zed_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zybo_defconfig | 1 -
> >> configs/zynq_zybo_z7_defconfig | 1 -
> >
> > zynq targets do need BAR, same has commented in previous mails.
>
> Hmmm, Is this a limitation of SPI controller on the SoC or flash on the
> board?
> AFAICS, zynq_spi.c, zynq_qspi.c zynq_spi.c zynqmp_gqspi.c are all FIFO
> based SPI controllers and ideally should not care about address length.
> Could you please explain why BAR is a requirement on these platforms?
>
> Were you able to test this series on any of those platforms?
>
>
> Go back to the log history, initial intension for adding BAR was on zynq.
>
Sorry, this is all I could find from mailing list (original series by
you that adds BAR support):
https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-June/157006.html
There is nothing that mentions why Zynq platforms need BAR support and
cannot use 4 byte opcodes to access >16MB space?
--
Regards
Vignesh
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list