Hi Stefano, On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Fabio Estevam <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Stefano Babic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> mmhhh...it looks to me we are diverging with this SOC. I understand that >> current funtions are not suitable for the new SOC. However, we were able >> to manage up now to write tables (mx6dq_iomux_ddr_regs) and use >> functions to setup the strength and the other parameters. As your tests >> has proofed that these functions do not work for MX6QP, the logical way >> to do is to modify these functions instead of putting back all this code >> in the board file. Do you agree ? > > Sure, I will work on using the common code for imx6qp here too.
I worked on converting this patch to using the existing DDR setup functions: https://pastebin.com/6PGx0pMx However I do see instability: after lauching the kernel I see a hang after "Starting the kernel..." sometimes. The original DDR configuration that I used from Technexion in the original patch is very stable and never hangs. The DDR iomux function can be used, but the mx6_dram_cfg() is the one that gives trouble. I understand that using the common framework is preferred, but it seems it will require a great amount of effort to make the qp board variant stable. Regards, Fabio Estevam _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
