[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/92] ram: rk3399: Add LPDDR4 support

[Jagan Teki]

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
> > features.
> >
> > 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.