On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Otavio Salvador,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Otavio Salvador,
This enables the 'Fast Auto Pre-Charge' found in the memory chip.
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br
Changes in v2:
- Improve commit message
arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_mem_init.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_mem_init.c b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_mem_init.c index 836e636..a9efd87 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_mem_init.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_mem_init.c @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static uint32_t dram_vals[] = {
#elif defined(CONFIG_MX23)
0x01010001, 0x00010100, 0x01000101, 0x00000001, 0x00000101, 0x00000000, 0x00010000, 0x01000001,
0x00000000, 0x00000001, 0x07000200, 0x00070202,
0x01000000, 0x00000001, 0x07000200, 0x00070202, 0x02020000, 0x04040a01, 0x00000201, 0x02040000, 0x02000000, 0x19000f08, 0x0d0d0000, 0x02021313, 0x02061521, 0x0000000a, 0x00080008, 0x00200020,I went through the u-boot mem init and detected you apparently added the following undocumented portion of code (the writel((1 << 24 ...) already:
112 static void initialize_dram_values(void) 113 { 114 int i; 115 116 mxs_adjust_memory_params(dram_vals); 117 118 for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dram_vals); i++) 119 writel(dram_vals[i], MXS_DRAM_BASE + (4 * i)); 120 121 #ifdef CONFIG_MX23 122 writel((1 << 24), MXS_DRAM_BASE + (4 * 8)); 123 #endif 124 }
It does enable the TRANS_LOCKOUT. So what the heck is going on here? Are you coding this stuff at random now ? WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING HERE ?!
What your tone, please.
My tone reflects my frustration here.
This does not give you the right to be hard at someone, specially when someone does not make a mistake by propose.
Indeed, it does it. It has been done loooong time ago when we started looking at MX23 and it was not obvious for me it.
I will send a patch reverting it and adding a comment explaning it there so it is documented.
No! Again, you are charging forward without thinking first!
Why was this code written like that in the first place? Why was this bit set later instead of during the register programming in the first place?
Check the patchset I sent before to shoot, please.
-- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br