Scott Wood wrote on 2010/11/17 20:27:01:
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:15:01 +0100
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Scott Wood wrote on 2010/11/17 20:03:25:
> > > The "load, conditional branch, isync" sequence is documented in the
> > > architecture manual (1.7.1), "even if the effects of the 'depen
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:15:01 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote on 2010/11/17 20:03:25:
> > The "load, conditional branch, isync" sequence is documented in the
> > architecture manual (1.7.1), "even if the effects of the 'dependency'
> > are independent of the value loaded".
>
> S
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/11/17 20:03:25:
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:26:02 +0100
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Scott Wood wrote on 2010/11/17 18:05:37:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:57:53 +0100
> > > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > > After adding some more stuff in start.S I find that
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:26:02 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote on 2010/11/17 18:05:37:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:57:53 +0100
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > After adding some more stuff in start.S I find that a lwz isn't
> > > enough. An extra isync fixes this though
>
Phillips Kim-R1AAHA
> > > , Gala , U-Boot List
> > >
> > > Date: 2010/11/15 17:58
> > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Make it boot again
> > > Sent by: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
> > >
> > > > The experts found an issue within i
/15 17:58
> > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Make it boot again
> > Sent by: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
> >
> > > The experts found an issue within init code and it looks like a proper
> > > patch will be added to mainline shortly.
> > > The dis
>After adding some more stuff in start.S I find that a lwz isn't
> enough. An extra isync fixes this though
> lwz r4, LBLAWAR1(r3)
> isync
> So something is missing but what? I guess isync isn't it either but
> it works for now.
Joakim,
Please post more code to the list to have a better understa
> From: Liu Dave-R63238
> To: Andre Schwarz
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , ku...@theia.denx.de, Tabi
> Timur-B04825 , Phillips Kim-R1AAHA
> , Gala , U-Boot List
>
> Date: 2010/11/15 17:58
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Make it boot again
> Sent by: u-boot-boun
> Wouldn't the fact that you're accessing the same address -- and
> that it's cache inhibited -- eliminate the need for a sync instruction
> between the stw and lwz?
You are right. If st and ld the same address, e300 core have a address
collision inside.
It will make sure the order. Here we don't
[Responding here rather than directly to Dave since his e-mail showed
up blank here for some reason]
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:30:46 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > The experts found an issue within init code and it looks like a proper
> > > patch will be added to mainline shortly.
> > > Th
>
> > The experts found an issue within init code and it looks like a proper
> > patch will be added to mainline shortly.
> > The discussion of the proper fix is right in this thread ...
>
> It should be timing issue in the SoC, software did not have a proper
> process to handle
> IMMR registers ac
> The experts found an issue within init code and it looks like a proper
> patch will be added to mainline shortly.
> The discussion of the proper fix is right in this thread ...
It should be timing issue in the SoC, software did not have a proper
process to handle
IMMR registers accessing.
I agr
Dave,
> I notice this is hot thread for 83xx in these days.
> Anybody can share more background for the issue?
> I would like have a look the issue.
>
during MPC8377 board bring up we couldn't get U-Boot up and running -
the serial line has been dead.
Using a bdi2000 debugger told us the CPU
> Has anyone else tested 83xx on NOR?
> My guess is that cache line crossing shifted so that now the CPU
> doesn't need to read in a new cache at the critical part.
I notice this is hot thread for 83xx in these days.
Anybody can share more background for the issue?
I would like have a look the iss
Andre Schwarz wrote on 2010/11/15 10:57:30:
>
> On 11/12/2010 08:31 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:26:17 -0600
> > Kumar Gala wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:58:53 -0600
> >>> Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>>
> >
On 11/12/2010 08:31 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:26:17 -0600
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:58:53 -0600
>>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
We only do the 'twi' for loads/in_beX not stores/
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:26:17 -0600
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:58:53 -0600
> > Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> We only do the 'twi' for loads/in_beX not stores/out_beX.
> >
> > Yes, and the readback is a load.
>
> following the st
On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:58:53 -0600
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
>>
>>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
an isync(padding with 4 nop's a
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:58:53 -0600
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
>
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
> >> an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the trick)
> >> after updating LBLAWAR1 to make sur
Kumar Gala wrote on 2010/11/12 16:58:48:
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > After the removal of COLD/WARM start flags my mpc8321
> > board didn't boot anymore.
> > Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
> > an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the tri
On Nov 4, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
>> an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the trick)
>> after updating LBLAWAR1 to make sure the the change has
>> reached the HW before continuing with the cod
On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> After the removal of COLD/WARM start flags my mpc8321
> board didn't boot anymore.
> Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
> an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the trick)
> after updating LBLAWAR1 to make sure the the chang
>
> >
> > Timur Tabi wrote:
> > > Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > > To be totally safe, we probably want to do a readback plus twi (to turn
> > > > a data dependency into a flow dependency) before the isync.
> > >
> > > twi == trap word immediate?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If so, I don't see how that w
>
> Timur Tabi wrote:
> > Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > To be totally safe, we probably want to do a readback plus twi (to turn
> > > a data dependency into a flow dependency) before the isync.
> >
> > twi == trap word immediate?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, I don't see how that will turn a data dependen
On 11/04/2010 08:49 PM, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
>
> Timur Tabi wrote:
> > Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > > To be totally safe, we probably want to do a readback plus twi (to
> turn
> > > a data dependency into a flow dependency) before the isync.
> >
> > twi == trap word immediate?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > To be totally safe, we probably want to do a readback plus twi (to turn
> > a data dependency into a flow dependency) before the isync.
>
> twi == trap word immediate?
Yes.
> If so, I don't see how that will turn a data dependency into a flow
> d
Wood Scott-B07421 wrote on 2010/11/04 17:47:41:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
> > an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the trick)
> > after updating LBLAWAR1 to make sure the the change has
> > reached the HW before continuing with the code
Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> To be totally safe, we probably want to do a readback plus twi (to turn
> a data dependency into a flow dependency) before the isync.
twi == trap word immediate?
If so, I don't see how that will turn a data dependency into a flow dependency.
Is that some sort of side e
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
> an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the trick)
> after updating LBLAWAR1 to make sure the the change has
> reached the HW before continuing with the code that depends on it.
> Add an isync to remap_flash_by_law0 fo
After the removal of COLD/WARM start flags my mpc8321
board didn't boot anymore.
Trial and error suggests that map_flash_by_law1 needs
an isync(padding with 4 nop's also did the trick)
after updating LBLAWAR1 to make sure the the change has
reached the HW before continuing with the code that depend
30 matches
Mail list logo
