On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 10:34 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 5/9/19 5:57 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 14:55 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 5/8/19 12:17 PM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
On Tue, 2019-05-07 at 21:44 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 5/7/19 9:43 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On 07.05.19 21:41, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On 5/7/19 9:36 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07.05.19 21:19, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > According to SoCFPGA Cyclone V datasheet > > > rev.2018.01.26 > > > page > > > 175 > > > (Chapter 5, FPGA Manager, data register) and Arria10 > > > datasheet > > > rev.2017.07.22 page 211 (Chapter 5.4.1.2, FPGA > > > Manager, > > > img_data_w > > > register), the FPGA data register must be written > > > with > > > writes > > > with > > > non-incrementing address. > > > > > > The current code increments the address in 32-byte > > > bursts. > > > Fix the > > > code so it does not increment the address and writes > > > the > > > register > > > repeatedly instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de > > > Cc: Chin Liang See chin.liang.see@intel.com > > > Cc: Dinh Nguyen dinguyen@kernel.org > > > Cc: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.co > > > m> > > > Cc: Tien Fong Chee tien.fong.chee@intel.com > > > --- > > > drivers/fpga/socfpga.c | 3 +-- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/socfpga.c > > > b/drivers/fpga/socfpga.c > > > index 685957626b..6ecea771ce 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/fpga/socfpga.c > > > +++ b/drivers/fpga/socfpga.c > > > @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ void fpgamgr_program_write(const > > > void > > > *rbf_data, > > > size_t rbf_size) > > > " cmp %2, #0\n" > > > " beq 2f\n" > > > "1: ldmia %0!, {r0-r7}\n" > > > - " stmia %1!, {r0-r7}\n" > > > - " sub %1, #32\n" > > > + " stmia %1, {r0-r7}\n" > > Iirc, stmia without the "!" still stores the registers > > to > > different > > addresses, it just does not change %1 any more if you > > leave > > away the > > "!"? So this would save on opcode, but not change > > anything? > Uh oh, you're right. Do we have a bigger problem here > then ? > Or > is the > socfpga ignoring the bottom 5 bits of this register > address ? Well, bitsream programming works for me very well (we're loading all our FGPAs in U-Boot from a FIT image), so maybe it's the documentation that has a problem?
That could indeed be, maybe someone on the CC list can take a look into it and crosscheck it with internal docs ?
I can't find any doc mention about "FPGA data must be written in non- incremting address", but i saw there is a description about configuration data is buffered in a 64 deep x 32 bits wide FIFO in the FPGA Manager https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/programmable /us/ en/p dfs/literature/hb/arria-10/a10_5v4.pdf (pg. 204)
Well yes, it's a FIFO, but is the FIFO populated by writing to a single non-incrementing address or are we supposed to write to subsequent incrementing addresses ?
Based on my understand through this register fpga_mgr_fpgamgrdata address map (0xFFCFE400-0xFFCFE7FF) on pg. 207 , the 256 bytes of FIFO buffer is mapping to above range addresses.
0xFFCFE7FF-0xFFCFE400 = 0x400 = 1024 Bytes , not 256 . Why ?
Finally, i have connected all scattered dot information from few internal docs. The register fpga_mgr_fpgamgrdata is actually a space in memory, acting like a buffer for the FPGA data. Regardless of the programming mode, data input from this buffer is translated into a 32- bit wide data path used by the configuration logic.
Does that mean that a write anywhere in 0xFFCFE400..0xFFCFE7FF ends up in the same register / FIFO ? Does that mean that whole address range ignores the bottom 0x3ff MSbits ? Does it matter to which address in that range the CPU writes the data or not ?
Sorry, that's all information i have. Anyway, i have already engaged the HW engineer in the loop, and i will update you once i have more details.
Thanks.