Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] powerpc/86xx: Add support for Emerson/Artesyn MVME7100

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 10:33 +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing it!
> 
> On 19 April 2016 at 06:26, Scott Wood  wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 09:57 +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> > > + pci0: pcie@f1008000 {
> > > + reg = <0xf1008000 0x1000>;
> > > + ranges = <0x0200 0x0 0x8000 0x8000 0x0
> > > 0x5000
> > > +   0x0100 0x0 0x 0xf000 0x0
> > > 0x0080>;
> [...]
> > > +
> > > + pci1: pcie@f1009000 {
> > > + compatible = "fsl,mpc8641-pcie";
> > > + device_type = "pci";
> > > + #size-cells = <2>;
> > > + #address-cells = <3>;
> > > + reg = <0xf1009000 0x1000>;
> > > + bus-range = <0 0xff>;
> > 
> > Why are pci0 and pci1 so different? Why does mpc8641si-post.dtsi not have
> > pci1?
> 
> You are right. The MPC8641 processor offers two pci so
> mpc8641si-post.dtsi should be the right place where to define both.
> What about the boards which don't use the pci1? Will 'status =
> "disabled"' be enough?

Yes.

-Scott

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] powerpc/86xx: Add support for Emerson/Artesyn MVME7100

[Scott Wood]

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 09:57 +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> + pci0: pcie@f1008000 {
> + reg = <0xf1008000 0x1000>;
> + ranges = <0x0200 0x0 0x8000 0x8000 0x0
> 0x5000
> +   0x0100 0x0 0x 0xf000 0x0
> 0x0080>;
> + pcie@0 {
> + ranges = <0x0200 0x0 0x8000
> +   0x0200 0x0 0x8000
> +   0x0 0x5000
> +
> +   0x0100 0x0 0x
> +   0x0100 0x0 0x
> +   0x0 0x0080>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + pci1: pcie@f1009000 {
> + compatible = "fsl,mpc8641-pcie";
> + device_type = "pci";
> + #size-cells = <2>;
> + #address-cells = <3>;
> + reg = <0xf1009000 0x1000>;
> + bus-range = <0 0xff>;

Why are pci0 and pci1 so different?  Why does mpc8641si-post.dtsi not have
pci1?

> +asm(".globl _zimage_start\n\
> + _zimage_start:\n\
> + mfmsr   10\n\
> + rlwinm  10,10,0,~(1<<15)/* Clear MSR_EE */\n\
> + sync\n\
> + mtmsr   10\n\
> + isync\n\
> + b _zimage_start_lib\n\
> +");

Please put this in an asm file.

Is U-Boot really not clearing MSR[EE]?  How old is this U-Boot?

> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/ppcboot.h b/arch/powerpc/boot/ppcboot.h
> index 6ae6f90..7b758be 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/ppcboot.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/ppcboot.h
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ typedef struct bd_info {
>   unsigned long   bi_sramstart;   /* start of SRAM memory
> */
>   unsigned long   bi_sramsize;/* size  of SRAM
> memory */
>  #if defined(TARGET_8xx) || defined(TARGET_CPM2) || defined(TARGET_85xx) ||\
> - defined(TARGET_83xx)
> + defined(TARGET_83xx) || defined(TARGET_MVME7100)
>   unsigned long   bi_immr_base;   /* base of IMMR register
> */
>  #endif

TARGET_86xx would match the U-Boot definition better.

> +/*
> + * Called very early, device-tree isn't unflattened
> + */
> +static int __init mvme7100_probe(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
> +
> + if (!of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "artesyn,MVME7100"))
> + return 0;
> +
> + _set_L2CR(_get_L2CR() | L2CR_L2E);
> + return 1;
> +}

U-Boot doesn't enable L2 cache?

-Scott

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev