[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/92] ram: rk3399: Add LPDDR4 support
philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com
Tue Jun 11 15:06:08 UTC 2019
> On 11.06.2019, at 17:03, Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:23 PM Philipp Tomsich
> <philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
>>> On 11.06.2019, at 16:50, Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, it can be possible to break this series into multiple sub series
>>> but idea here is to mark all the required changes to support LPDDR4
>>> in rk3399 in one set. if required we can break it from next versions.
>>> This is the initial set for supporting LPDDR4 with associated
>>> Thanks to
>>> - YouMin Chen
>>> - Akash Gajjar
>>> - Kever Yang
>>> for supporting all the help on this work.
>>> On summary this series support
>>> - Code warning and fixes
>>> - rank detection, this would required to probe single channel
>>> sdram configured in NanoPI-NEO4
>>> - LPDDR4 support, tested in Rockpro64 and Rock-PI-4
>>> patch 0001 - 0033: fix code warnings, prints, new macros
>>> patch 0034 - 0051: rank detection, sdram debug code
>>> patch 0052: Use DDR3-1800 on NanoPI-NEO4
>>> patch 0053 - 0089: lpddr4 support
>>> patch 0090: LPDDR4-100 timings
>>> patch 0091: Use LPDDR4-100 on Rockpro64
>>> patch 0092: Use LPDDR4-100 on Rock-PI 4
>>> Note: Puma rk3399 has SPL size overflow, better to enable TPL
>>> for this board.
>> We need to keep Puma on a SPL-only configuration for the time being.
>> Please make sure that the LPDDR4 code is an optional feature that does not
>> increase the DRAM-driver size for boards that don’t need/want it.
> We have few boards do have TPL-runnable, would be any technical issue
> to switch puma to TPL? because we have lpddr4 code part of existing
> driver itself and it require extra ifdef to consider which indeed look
> awful from code point-of-view.
Our secure boot process (i.e. signing tools) currently depends on this and
the changeover won’t be quick…
More information about the U-Boot