Dear Patrick,
In message 6daf1478e4284b8590c2862c6a504e9c@SFHDAG6NODE3.st.com you wrote:
After investigation, I found an potential issue when the current code of get_ram_size() is loaded near of power of 2 offset (just before an address modified by the code)... In fact the content of the RAM is modified during the code execution just after the PC address, and the code is not yet in instruction cache, so this the code crash. I try to found a good solution (limit the min offset to be tested, to avoid to modify the address used by U-Boot code)
You mean you are running this code from the very memory you are sizing? This is fundamentally broken. You must not do this!
get_ram_size() is supposed to run from some _different_ memory (at least a different memopry bank, usually better from a different memory type).
You can found analysis in : [U-Boot] questions about get_ram_size usage in U-Boot = DDR modification during code execution From Patrick DELAUNAY Mon Apr 24 16:11:41 UTC 2017 https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-April/288709.html
You write there:
| Today, I found a issue with get_ram_size() usage in U-Boot, when | U-Boot is executed in the tested memory.
You must not do this. The memory under test is supposed to be otherwise idle.
and finally the function return max size
For the test to work correctly, max test size should be chosen at least twice as big as the maximum possible memory configuration.
Perhaps other board failed because size of function code increase (not fully inside instruction cache page)
No. We are talking of boards that were implemented properly, i. e. the tested RAM was NOT the memory where get_ram_size() was running from.
or it is the same issue indicated previously: the address of function change and so code change during execution.
Code location or size does not play a role here. The code was running from parallel NOR flash, and testing the actual RAM size, so thsi is totally independent.
If the same patch come again I think that this function have really a problem and we could solve the issue (with my patch for exmale) and then understood the regression on other the boards.
I agree there appears to be a problem, but it should be understood..
In your case you use the code in an illegal way, so I tend to argument you are provoking undefined behaviour.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk