On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 06:40:48PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote: > Stefan Roese wrote: >> On Thursday 23 April 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:36:12AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote: >>>> There is an error in the way ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize calculates >>>> memory size. When testing the DDR_REDUC bit, the polarity is >>>> backwards. A "1" implies 32-bit wide memory while a "0" implies >>>> 64-bit wide memory. >>>> >>>> For a 32-bit wide system, this bug causes twice the memory to be >>>> reported, leading to boot failure. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco <sfa...@harris.com> >>> So we had a previous patch for this, and a very long discussion on what the >>> right solution was. Either we never came to a resolution, or I have just >>> forgotten what it was. >>> >>> Stefan, Valentine, do either of you remember? >> > > The patch will break sequia/rainier since u-boot doesn't set the number > of chipselects correctly for them. IIRC, the last conversation didn't > come to any conclusion. We sort of wanted to fix that regardless of > whether we had corrected u-boot or not. > > Could we use a "model" property to distinguish between the "real" > sequoia/rainier and other custom boards? > If yes, we could add a workaround the ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize to > hardcode the chipselect number to 1 for sequoia/rainier.
We could do that perhaps, yes. In cases where the board has a newer U-Boot with the fix already, it shouldn't really cause any harm, correct? josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
