[U-Boot-Users] Re: Patch: Support for PQ27e (8247/48/71/72) chips and MPC8272ADS board

In message 16469.31569.535909.246506@gargle.gargle.HOWL you wrote:

Wolfgang> -#undef CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE
Wolfgang> -#define CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE ((uint)(8 * 1024) - CPM_DATAONLY_BASE)

Wolfgang> Are you 100% sure this does not break any existing boards?

I checked it on four different boards with different PQ2 chips. In fact, for older (pre-PQ27e) chips this patch does not change memory map so they aren't affected in any way. Am I missing anything?

I don't know. I just want to understand the consequences.

Wolfgang> + gd->CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE;
Wolfgang> + if (is_pq27e())
Wolfgang> + gd->dp_alloc_top = gd->dp_alloc_base
Wolfgang> + gd->PQ27E_DATAONLY_SIZE;
Wolfgang> + else
Wolfgang> + gd->dp_alloc_top = gd->dp_alloc_base
Wolfgang> + gd->CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE;

First, ther is at least one redundand "gd->CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE;" here.

Wolfgang> Please do not add a board-specific #define
Wolfgang> PQ27E_DATAONLY_SIZE when we already have a
Wolfgang> CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE which could be used.

There should be some misunderstanding here. PQ27E_DATAONLY_SIZE is NOT board-specific (I won't add board-specific things into common files). PQ27e is the common name for the 8247/8248/8271/8272 (the `e'

Sorry for chosing a poor description.

stands for `encryption'). These chips have got much less internal memory (DPRAM) and at different addresses so they must have separate #defines. CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE is just incorrect for PQ27e. PQ27e have got only 4K of "data only" RAM and not 8K (and at different base, BTW).

Why do you need a separate #define then? Isn't it sufficient to #define a correct value for CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE then?

Wolfgang> 	PQ27E_FCC_SPECIAL_BASE vs. CPM_FCC_SPECIAL_BASE

It's for the same reason. PQ27e have not got RAM at 0xB000, other PQ2s

So why not just #define a correct value?

After the explanations, what changes would you suggest?

Use the existing variables and just assign correct values?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk