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

[Philipp Tomsich]

> On 12.06.2019, at 17:30, Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Philipp Tomsich
> <philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com <mailto:philipp.tomsich at theobroma-systems.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Our secure boot process (i.e. signing tools) currently depends on this and
>> the changeover won’t be quick…
> 
> Not so quick, we have time till MW. isn't it possible? enabling secure
> tools in both TPL and SPL or TPL-alone would be meaningful trail. what
> do you think?

We aren’t talking about a single MW here, given that summer is starting to eat
up some of my resources…

Thanks,
Phil.