On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:07 PM, York Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
> Previously the driver was only tested on Power SoCs. Minor fix is needed
> for ARM SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: York Sun <[email protected]>
Hi York!
> --- a/drivers/ddr/fsl/fsl_ddr_gen4.c
> +++ b/drivers/ddr/fsl/fsl_ddr_gen4.c
> @@ -183,12 +184,20 @@ step2:
> * we choose the max, that is 500 us for all of case.
> */
> udelay(500);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
> asm volatile("sync;isync");
> +#else
> + asm volatile("dsb sy;isb");
> +#endif
>
> /* Let the controller go */
> temp_sdram_cfg = ddr_in32(&ddr->sdram_cfg) & ~SDRAM_CFG_BI;
> ddr_out32(&ddr->sdram_cfg, temp_sdram_cfg | SDRAM_CFG_MEM_EN);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
> asm volatile("sync;isync");
> +#else
> + asm volatile("dsb sy;isb");
> +#endif
>
> total_gb_size_per_controller = 0;
> for (i = 0; i < CONFIG_CHIP_SELECTS_PER_CTRL; i++) {
This is a great example where we should try to introduce better abstractions
in much the same way that Linux has. Specifically, we (U-Boot) collective
might work toward some common lower-level abstractions such as a
memory_barrier() (and variants), and let those generic names get mapped
into architecture-specific implementations via a linked binding. Then this
code would not need to change, nor would #ifdefs be needed.
HTH,
jdl
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
