Re: [U-Boot] [REGRESSION] commit b502611b51... Change env_get_char from a... breaks imx31_phycore

2008-09-05 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
-Original Message- From: Guennadi Liakhovetski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 5 september 2008 20:01 To: U-Boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Joakim Tjernlund Subject: [REGRESSION] commit b502611b51... Change env_get_char from a... breaks imx31_phycore Hi, The aforementioned commit

Re: [U-Boot] [REGRESSION] commit b502611b51... Change env_get_char from a... breaks imx31_phycore

2008-09-05 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
-Original Message- From: Magnus Lilja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 5 september 2008 21:16 To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski; U-Boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [REGRESSION] commit b502611b51... Change env_get_char from a... breaks imx31_phycore Hi

Re: [U-Boot] JFFS2-Summary support for u-boot

2008-09-29 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:34 +, Michael Lawnick wrote: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se writes: On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 08:45 +, Michael Lawnick wrote: Hi *, please feel free to correct me if I tell sh**: As far as I was told, bad JFFS2 boot performance

Re: [U-Boot] JFFS2-Summary support for u-boot

2008-09-29 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 12:49 +, Michael Lawnick wrote: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se writes: Has anybody tried to (and succeeded in) speed up u-boot? Yes, there was an attempt some time ago(months or a year, dunno) where someone had improved scanning

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC] mpc8572ds relocatable

2008-10-13 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 00:53 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Ed Swarthout, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Fixes boot crash from bad string pointers in get_table_entry_name when flash is erased or differs from current u-boot image. Signed-off-by: Ed Swarthout [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-08-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
intermediate values. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +--- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned

2012-08-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Ping? The code first aligns the SP to 16 then subtract 8, making it 8 bytes aligned. Furthermore the initial stack frame not quite correct either. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments arch/powerpc/lib/board.c |5

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-08-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/08/14 23:01:47: On 08/14/2012 03:55 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Ping? PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned. Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-08-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Kumar Gala ga...@kernel.crashing.org wrote on 2012/08/14 23:28:45: On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned. Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-08-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andy Fleming aflem...@gmail.com wrote on 2012/08/22 23:08:45: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote: PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned. Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector which may in the way when gdb

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-08-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/08/23 18:53:14: On 08/23/2012 02:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Andy Fleming aflem...@gmail.com wrote on 2012/08/22 23:08:45: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote: PowerPC mandates SP

Re: [U-Boot] Problems with a P2020 board

2012-08-30 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Hi. We have a new board which we are suing with U-boot. The CPU is a P2020. I am having a few minor problems, and I was hoping to get some help. - Boot Count. We are keen to use the boot counter feature, but I am struggling to find a suitable register in the P2020. The file

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ppc: Create a stack frame for wait_ticks()

2012-07-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
wait_ticks() calls get_ticks() without building a back chain which makes gdb unhappy when doing back trace. This can also cause improper memory accesses. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S |7 +-- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer must be 16 aligned

2012-07-20 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
The PowerPC ABI mandates the SP to be 16 bytes aligned, make is so. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- arch/powerpc/lib/board.c |5 ++--- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git arch/powerpc/lib/board.c arch/powerpc/lib/board.c index

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-07-20 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
intermediate values. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +--- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S index 8d66cf1..8c75af9 100644

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-07-21 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/07/20 23:11:33: On 07/20/2012 04:20 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned. Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector which is just get in the way when gdb is walking the stack because

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer must be 16 aligned

2012-07-21 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/07/20 23:12:49: From: Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com To: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se, Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Date: 2012/07/20 23:12 Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer must be 16 aligned On 07

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-07-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/07/20 23:11:33: On 07/20/2012 04:20 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned. Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector which is just get in the way when gdb is walking the stack

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-07-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/07/23 18:52:28: From: Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com To: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se, Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Date: 2012/07/23 18:52 Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong. On 07/21

[U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-07-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
values. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +--- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S

[U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned

2012-07-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
The code first aligns the SP to 16 then subtract 8, making it 8 bytes aligned. Furthermore the initial stack frame not quite correct either. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments arch/powerpc/lib/board.c |5 ++--- 1 files

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.

2012-07-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote on 2012/07/23 19:28:20: On 07/23/2012 12:11 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: ...but I was a bit confused when I thought it would help terminate things. The NULL LR only helps prevent finding something worse, if something happens to do a backtrace

Re: [U-Boot] mpc512x: Trouble migrating from 2012.07 to 2013.01

2013-01-24 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Mats Kärrman mats.karr...@tritech.se wrote on 2013/01/23 22:58:56: Dear Wolfgang Denk, Found that it was looping endlessly in arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S::wait_ticks (). Reverting commit ppc: Create a stack frame for wait_ticks() made everything work again. This makes no sense to me

Re: [U-Boot] mpc512x: Trouble migrating from 2012.07 to 2013.01

2013-01-24 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2013/01/24 09:40:45: From: Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode To: Mats Kärrman mats.karr...@tritech.se, Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de u-boot@lists.denx.de, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de Date: 2013/01/24 09:40 Subject: RE: [U-Boot] mpc512x: Trouble migrating from 2012.07

Re: [U-Boot] mpc512x: Trouble migrating from 2012.07 to 2013.01

2013-01-24 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2013/01/24 09:58:35: Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2013/01/24 09:40:45: From: Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode To: Mats Kärrman mats.karr...@tritech.se, Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de u-boot@lists.denx.de, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de Date: 2013/01/24 09

Re: [U-Boot] mpc512x: Trouble migrating from 2012.07 to 2013.01

2013-01-24 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Mats Kärrman mats.karr...@tritech.se wrote on 2013/01/24 14:31:02: Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2013/01/24 09:21: Looking at the watchdog impl. I see it can be normal C code. This makes wait_ticks unsafe (even before my patch) as wait_ticks relies on r6 and r7 (and with my patch

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] powerpc/lib: unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

2013-01-24 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Hi, Hi Mats I would appreciate if you CC me directly on stuff I have been involved in. I don't read every mail on u-boot list(to many of them). It was just plain luck I saw this one. If watchdog is enabled, the arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S::wait_ticks() function calls the function

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] powerpc/lib: unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

2013-01-25 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2013/01/24 20:27:26: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message OF52C94A3D.C3BD2E6F-ONC1257AFD.005BAFE0-C1257AFD. 00673...@transmode.se you wrote: This adds some extra churn to the code that my patch didn't do. On the other hand your patch makes

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc/lib: fix unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

2013-01-28 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
. The patch has been tested on a custom MPC5125 based machine using the 512x powerpc architecture. Signed-off-by: Mats Karrman mats.karr...@tritech.se Cc: Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de Acked-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se Thanks for this fix. I just reproduced this problem

Re: [U-Boot] PowerPC -mrelocatable

2009-09-09 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Dear Peter, In message 1252426573.6005.253.ca...@localhost.localdomain you wrote: Going over the emails and my own testing, it looks the following versions worked: ... Thanks for the detailed analysis. I remember that gcc-3.4.x has always been marked as suspicious in our tests, so

[U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-09 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
I wonder if this hides another problem too. if the timeout hits, -1 is returned. Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have: if (i2c_wait4bus() = 0 i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0) != 0 __i2c_write(a[4 - alen], alen) == alen) i = 0; /* No error

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-09 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
timur.t...@gmail.com wrote on 09/09/2009 16:24:15: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim Tjernlundjoakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote: I wonder if this hides another problem too. if the timeout hits, -1 is returned. Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:        if (i2c_wait4bus()

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
timur.t...@gmail.com wrote on 09/09/2009 16:24:15: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim Tjernlundjoakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote: I wonder if this hides another problem too. if the timeout hits, -1 is returned. Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:        if

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 15:07:36: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: BTW, the fdr and dfsr calculations appears totally bogus. It seems like the table is taken from some examples in AN2919 and it is pure luck that it works most of the time. For me it does not work 100

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 15:29:35: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the values of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 15:29:35: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the values of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 17:22:38: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Come on, just because my board is somewhat broken, it doesn't mean the driver is correct. If I define my speed to 100KHz I get a DFSR of 22, way over what is allowed for my board. Why is a value of 22

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 17:26:29: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Looking a bit harder at the table I don't understand some entries, where does the entries with dfsr != 1 come from? They don't look like any table in AN2919 They're all calculated. I entered

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: This calculation does not seem to match AN2919. When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today. Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1) Table

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-10 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: This calculation does not seem to match AN2919. When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today. Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1) Table

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-11 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: This calculation does not seem to match AN2919. When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today. Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c) some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference between the table and the algorithm to calculate

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-14 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi wrote: Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c) some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference between the table and the

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@grandegger.com wrote on 15/09/2009 13:53:13: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c) some time ago using

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] fsl_i2c: Wait for STOP condition to propagate

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
the I2C bus. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 12 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c b/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c index 47bbf79..59bfab6 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c +++ b

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Some boards need a higher DFSR value than the spec currently recommends so give these boards the means to define there own. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c |9 ++--- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [U-Boot] fsl_i2c: increase I2C timeout values and make them configurable

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
I am using 2.6.30 and I think it is fairly equal to yours. I am not using either property above so the linux i2c-mpc. driver falls back to fdr=0x31 and dfsr=0x10 and this works well. It is u-boot that isn't working. However, I have found a few driver bugs in the u-boot driver and fixing

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Some boards need a higher DFSR value than the spec currently recommends so give these boards the means to define there own. Wow, that was fast :) If you're going to do this, then you need to also define CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_FSR and CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_SPEED

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 15/09/2009 21:04:47: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: No, the impact on speed from DFSR is pretty small so it will be close enough. How small? From the app note: divisor = B * (A + ((3*C)/B)*2); C is dfsr and 10 = A = 30, 16 = B = 2048 Considering

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-15 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 15/09/2009 21:04:47: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: No, the impact on speed from DFSR is pretty small so it will be close enough. How small? From the app note: divisor = B * (A + ((3*C)/B)*2); C is dfsr and 10 = A = 30, 16 = B = 2048

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_{DFSR/DFR}

2009-09-16 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Some boards need a higher DFSR value than the spec currently recommends so give these boards the means to define there own. For completeness, add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFR too. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 14 +++--- 1 files

[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] fsl_i2c: Impl. AN2819, rev 5 to calculate FDR/DFSR

2009-09-16 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
The latest AN2819 has changed the way FDR/DFSR should be calculated. Update the driver according to spec. However, Condition 2 is not accounted for as it is not clear how to do so. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 88

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] fsl_i2c: Wait for STOP condition to propagate

2009-09-16 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
the I2C bus. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 12 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c b/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c index 47bbf79..56f9680 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c +++ b

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-16 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@denx.de wrote on 16/09/2009 12:22:05: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 15/09/2009 21:04:47: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: No, the impact on speed from DFSR is pretty small so it will be close enough. How small? From the app note

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-16 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@grandegger.com wrote on 16/09/2009 13:45:03: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Wolfgang Grandegger w...@denx.de wrote on 16/09/2009 12:22:05: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 15/09/2009 21:04:47: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: No, the impact

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_DFSR

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@denx.de wrote on 17/09/2009 08:36:32: mpc8321, I2C bus is between 34KHz and 100KHz, CSB is 133.332 MHz OK, where can I find the new AN2819? I found Document Number: AN2919, Rev. 5, 12/2008. That is the one I found too. Jocke

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] fsl_i2c: Impl. AN2819, rev 5 to calculate FDR/DFSR

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Heiko Schocher h...@denx.de wrote on 17/09/2009 08:00:34: Hello Joakim, Hi Heiko Joakim Tjernlund wrote: The latest AN2819 has changed the way FDR/DFSR should be calculated. Update the driver according to spec. However, Condition 2 is not accounted for as it is not clear how to do so

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
When preparing the ppc relocation patches I noticed that the gcc -mrelocatable compiler flag increases the .reloc section by 3 or 4 Kbytes. I did a compile test, and this increase pushes the ALPR board back over 256K (it recently had the same size issue, see ppc4xx: Remove some features

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 17/09/2009 09:50:51: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message OFF85C09CB.2A4A1999-ONC1257634.0025DF59-C1257634. 00270...@transmode.se you wrote: One day we can fit the whole relocation table into built-in CPU memory, hopefully that will make it possible

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_{DFSR/FDR}

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Some boards need a higher DFSR value than the spec currently recommends so give these boards the means to define there own. For completeness, add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_FDR too. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 14 +++--- 1 files

[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] fsl_i2c: Impl. AN2919, rev 5 to calculate FDR/DFSR

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
The latest AN2919 has changed the way FDR/DFSR should be calculated. Update the driver according to spec. However, Condition 2 is not accounted for as it is not clear how to do so. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 90

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] fsl_i2c: Wait for STOP condition to propagate

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
the I2C bus. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c | 12 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c b/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c index 47bbf79..56f9680 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/fsl_i2c.c +++ b

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] fsl_i2c: Wait for STOP condition to propagate

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Hello Joakim, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: After issuing a STOP one must wait until the STOP has completed on the bus before doing something new to the controller. Also add an extra read of SR as the manual mentions doing that is a good idea. Remove surplus write of CR just before

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 17/09/2009 12:15:42: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message OFA0E17029.E568D101-ONC1257634.002EFBFD-C1257634. 002f9...@transmode.se you wrote: One day we can fit the whole relocation table into built-in CPU memory, hopefully that will make

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 17/09/2009 14:53:59: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, Dear me :) In message OF680476D5.A9D9D259-ONC1257634.00449AC4-C1257634. 00451...@transmode.se you wrote: But why has the GOT table to fit into built-in CPU memory? When we are about to relocate U-Boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] fsl_i2c: Add CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_{DFSR/FDR}

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Joakim Tjernlund wrote: +#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_FDR + fdr = CONFIG_FSL_I2C_CUSTOM_FDR; + speed = i2c_clk / divider; /* Fake something */ How about setting 'speed' to CONFIG_SYS_I2C_SPEED? Naa, if you want that you just pass CONFIG_SYS_I2C_SPEED to i2c_init

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-17 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com wrote on 17/09/2009 23:57:56: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message OF680476D5.A9D9D259-ONC1257634.00449AC4-C1257634. 00451...@transmode.se you wrote: But why has the GOT table to fit

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-18 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com wrote on 17/09/2009 19:29:18: From: Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com To: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se Cc: pieter.voorthuij...@prodrive.nl, u-boot@lists.denx.de, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de Date: 17/09/2009 19:29 Subject: Re: [U

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-18 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com wrote on 18/09/2009 16:28:35: On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 09:06 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: When preparing the ppc relocation patches I noticed that the gcc -mrelocatable compiler flag increases the .reloc section by 3 or 4 Kbytes. I did

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-18 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com wrote on 18/09/2009 17:21:57: Sorry, I don't have an example. Just a guess, weak function references: void weak_fun(void) __attribute__ ((weak)); if (weak_fun) weak_fun(); Using default weak functions as well as overridden weak functions both

Re: [U-Boot] [TESTING PATCH] ppc: Relocation test patch

2009-09-18 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com wrote on 18/09/2009 18:24:48: Sorry, I don't have an example. Just a guess, weak function references: void weak_fun(void) __attribute__ ((weak)); if (weak_fun) weak_fun(); Using default weak functions as well as overridden weak

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] fsl_i2c: Impl. AN2919, rev 5 to calculate FDR/DFSR

2009-09-21 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@denx.de wrote on 21/09/2009 12:53:36: Hi Joakim, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: The latest AN2919 has changed the way FDR/DFSR should be calculated. Update the driver according to spec. However, Condition 2 is not accounted for as it is not clear how to do so. I

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] fsl_i2c: Impl. AN2919, rev 5 to calculate FDR/DFSR

2009-09-21 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@denx.de wrote on 21/09/2009 13:59:04: Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Wolfgang Grandegger w...@denx.de wrote on 21/09/2009 12:53:36: Hi Joakim, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: The latest AN2919 has changed the way FDR/DFSR should be calculated. Update the driver according

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 00/13] ppc: Fix relocation

2009-09-22 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
This series attempts to fix relocation to RAM for ppc boards. I split the patches up pretty liberally, let me know if you'd like them organized differently. I tried to be thorough during the changes (especially #1), let me know if I missed anything, there's lots of linker scripts for ppc

Re: [U-Boot] MPC83xx and uec

2009-09-22 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
I can't find a way to get at uec_info_t/STD_UEC_INFO from my board_eth_init() in current u-boot. Am I missing something? Also drivers/qe/uec.h:int uec_initialize(bd_t *bis, uec_info_t *uec_info); include/netdev.h:int uec_initialize(int index); different prototypes for the same function.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fsl_i2c: Do not generate STOP after read.

2009-09-22 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
__i2c_read always ends with a STOP condition thereby releasing the bus. It is cleaner to do the STOP magic in i2c_read(), like i2c_write() does. This may also help future multimaster systems which wants to hold on to the bus until all transactions are finished. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund

Re: [U-Boot] MPC83xx and uec

2009-09-22 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Anton Vorontsov avoront...@ru.mvista.com wrote on 22/09/2009 15:51:17: From: Anton Vorontsov avoront...@ru.mvista.com To: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de, kim.phill...@freescale.com Date: 22/09/2009 15:51 Subject: Re: [U-Boot] MPC83xx

Re: [U-Boot] MPC83xx and uec

2009-09-22 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Ben Warren biggerbadder...@gmail.com wrote on 22/09/2009 18:55:22: Anton Vorontsov wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 04:03:16PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: [...] Also drivers/qe/uec.h:int uec_initialize(bd_t *bis, uec_info_t *uec_info); include/netdev.h:int uec_initialize(int index

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] fsl_i2c: Wait for STOP condition to propagate

2009-09-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message 1253178437-32398-1-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se you wrote: After issuing a STOP one must wait until the STOP has completed on the bus before doing something new to the controller. Also add an extra read of SR as the manual mentions

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] fsl_i2c: Wait for STOP condition to propagate

2009-09-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Heiko Schocher heiko.schoc...@invitel.hu wrote on 23/09/2009 11:02:09: Hello Joakim, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message 1253178437-32398-1-git-send-email- joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se you wrote: After issuing a STOP one must wait until the STOP has completed

[U-Boot] [PATCH] relocation: Do not relocate NULL pointers.

2009-09-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated. After this correction code like: void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak)); printf(weak_fun:%p\n, weak_fun); will still print null after relocation. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- I have only tested

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] relocation: Do not relocate NULL pointers.

2009-09-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Stefan Roese s...@denx.de wrote on 23/09/2009 14:24:34: On Wednesday 23 September 2009 13:51:46 Joakim Tjernlund wrote: NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated. After this correction code like: void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak)); printf(weak_fun:%p\n, weak_fun

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] relocation: Do not relocate NULL pointers.

2009-09-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com wrote on 23/09/2009 14:17:51: On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 13:51 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated. After this correction code like: void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak)); printf(weak_fun:%p\n, weak_fun

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] relocation: Do not relocate NULL pointers.

2009-09-23 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
) wants to play some more. I will answer questions though. From 684443ce6870eac2878026e47cc107fbfcdefc02 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:41:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] relocation: Use C as much as possible to do relocation

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] arm920t/at91/reset.c: fix weak reset_board()

2010-11-03 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
The arm920t compiler/linker dif not handle weak functions correctely. Therefore the linker tried to link outside the ELF (isn't that lazy linking?). This leads to segfault of linker in the end. This patch adds a empty stub for weak function reset_board() to catch that case. I believe this

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] arm920t/at91/reset.c: fix weak reset_board()

2010-11-03 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Graeme Russ graeme.r...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/11/04 02:13:44: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote: The arm920t compiler/linker dif not handle weak functions correctely. Therefore the linker tried to link outside the ELF (isn't

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andre Schwarz andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de wrote on 2010/10/25 15:50:19: Jocke, [snip] You still haven't reported weather the 4 nop's helped or not, yet you seek my help. I am just going to ignore you until you do test it. finally I got both some time and hardware : 4 nops after

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2010/11/04 10:50:38: Dear Andre Schwarz, In message 4cc58b1b.8040...@matrix-vision.de you wrote: Diffing both System.maps and U-Boot hexdump gives only trivial results : - in_flash and _start_of_vectors adress increment = 0x10. Hey, stop here.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2010/11/04 10:57:42: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message of5324ec0a.37c044b2-onc12577d1.0031f002-c12577d1.00326...@transmode.se you wrote: 4 nops after _start does the trick, i.e. the board is up and running fine. ... How is this going? If nothing

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2010/11/04 10:57:42: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message of5324ec0a.37c044b2-onc12577d1.0031f002-c12577d1.00326...@transmode.se you wrote: 4 nops after _start does the trick, i.e. the board is up and running fine. ... How

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andy Pont andy.p...@sdcsystems.com wrote on 2010/11/04 11:58:19: Joakim wrote... Sure, but until freescale or someone else with eq. and motivation researches it, we are stuck. I am not sure anyone else has tried 83xx based boards yet. If someone has please report. Also include weather

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andre Schwarz andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de wrote on 2010/11/04 13:14:37: Andy, Sure, but until freescale or someone else with eq. and motivation researches it, we are stuck. I am not sure anyone else has tried 83xx based boards yet. If someone has please report. Also include weather

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2010/11/04 12:16:31: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message of4390b64d.1fbd6276-onc12577d1.003bb658-c12577d1.003bf...@transmode.se you wrote: hmm, what if a board decides to do a soft reset anyway, perhaps by mistake. Would it not be a good thing if u

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2010/11/04 13:46:17: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message of18ca6215.dc3a539b-onc12577d1.00439a8b-c12577d1.0043b...@transmode.se you wrote: What exactly is a soft reset in U-Boot? And how would you perform one? Not in u-boot, but Linux

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andre Schwarz andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de wrote on 2010/11/04 13:28:27: Andy, Sure, but until freescale or someone else with eq. and motivation researches it, we are stuck. I am not sure anyone else has tried 83xx based boards yet. If someone has please report. Also include

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote on 2010/11/04 14:07:50: Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message of51547b77.f521dbce-onc12577d1.0046eb0d-c12577d1.00474...@transmode.se you wrote: Could do what? Modify the memory map such that the Flash is mapped Issue an soft reset somehow. Don't know

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andre Schwarz andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de wrote on 2010/11/04 14:32:15: Jocke, [snip] still -E_TOO_LITTLE_INFO: sorry - thought it was clear already. include weather booted from NAND or NOR, CPU type(e300cX) and what reset vector is used. CPU: e300c4, MPC8379, Rev: 2.1 at

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Make it boot again

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
that depends on it. Add an isync to remap_flash_by_law0 for good measure too. Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/start.S |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/start.S b/arch/powerpc/cpu

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: do not fixup NULL ptrs

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Andre Schwarz andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de wrote on 2010/11/04 15:49:06: Jocke, CPU: e300c4, MPC8379, Rev: 2.1 at 600 MHz, CSB: 400 MHz - Boot from NOR Flash - HRCW from I2C EEPROM - Reset Vector 0x100, i.e. low boot. OK, almost the same as me, but I got a: CPU: e300c2,

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Make it boot again

2010-11-04 Thread Joakim Tjernlund
Wood Scott-B07421 b07...@freescale.com 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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >