On 06/18/2014 07:57 AM, Jon Loeliger wrote: > 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. >
Agreed. I will work on that. York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
