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.com > 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.
Thanks.