On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:45 PM André Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2020 15:02, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:54 PM André Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/12/2020 03:16, Samuel Holland wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> On 12/2/20 7:54 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> + soc {
> >>>> + compatible = "simple-bus";
> >>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x40000000>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + syscon: syscon@3000000 {
> >>>> + compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h616-system-control",
> >>>> + "allwinner,sun50i-a64-system-control";
> >>>> + reg = <0x03000000 0x1000>;
> >>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + ranges;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + sram_c: sram@28000 {
> >>>> + compatible = "mmio-sram";
> >>>> + reg = <0x00028000 0x30000>;
> >>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + ranges = <0 0x00028000 0x30000>;
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +
> >>>> + sram_c1: sram@1a00000 {
> >>>> + compatible = "mmio-sram";
> >>>> + reg = <0x01a00000 0x200000>;
> >>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>>> + ranges = <0 0x01a00000 0x200000>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ve_sram: sram-section@0 {
> >>>> + compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h616-sram-c1",
> >>>> + "allwinner,sun4i-a10-sram-c1";
> >>>> + reg = <0x000000 0x200000>;
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>
> >>> You mentioned that you could not find a SRAM A2. How were these SRAM ranges
> >>> verified? If you can load eGON.BT0 larger than 32 KiB, then presumably NBROM
> >>> uses SRAM C, and it is in the manual, but I see no mention of SRAM C1.
> >>
> >> The manual says that SRAM C *can* be used by "the system", at boot time,
> >> as long as it's configured correctly. I couldn't find any details on how
> >> to switch clock sources for SRAM C, and the manual stanza on this is
> >> quite gibberish. I presume it's configured either by BROM or by reset
> >> default this way. I think the idea is that the later users (VE, DE) take
> >> ownership at some point (which means we can't run any firmware in there).
> >> The BSP boot0 is 48KB already, so reaching into SRAM C, and the code
> >> itself heavily uses SRAM C (found by hacking boot0 to drop to FEL and
> >> inspecting the memory afterwards).
> >>
> >> For C1: I copied this name from the H6 .dtsi, the manual calls this
> >> "VE-SRAM", in both manuals, and the description looks identical there
> >> for both SoCs. I think this will be later used by the video engine, so I
> >> kept it in. The large size made me suspicious, and from former
> >> experiments it looks like being aliased to (parts of) SRAM C.
> >
> > I would just call it sram_ve or ve_sram. SRAM C1 would make more sense if
> > it were part of SRAM C, not the other way around.
>
> But isn't that what we do? "sram_c1" is just the node name alias used
> for the parent node. That is actually never referenced anywhere (in any
> of the the H6 .dts), so we can actually remove it, I guess.
> The actual SRAM section is called ve_sram already.
This is what I had in mind:
syscon: {
sram_c: sram@28000 {
compatible = "mmio-sram";
reg = <0x00028000 0x30000>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
ranges = <0 0x00028000 0x30000>;
/* starting address might not be correct */
sram_c_ve: sram-section@0 {
compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h616-ve-sram-c",
"allwinner,sun4i-a10-sram-c1";
/* 64 kiB borrowed from ve_sram */
reg = <0x0 0x10000>;
};
};
ve_sram: sram@1a00000 {
compatible = "mmio-sram";
reg = <0x01a00000 0x200000>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
};
};
Another variant, trying to describe the aliasing, though it seems
quite confusing:
syscon: {
ve_sram: sram@1a00000 {
compatible = "mmio-sram";
reg = <0x01a00000 0x200000>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
ranges;
ve_sram_c: sram-section@28000 {
compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h616-ve-sram-c",
"allwinner,sun4i-a10-sram-c1";
reg = <0x28000 0x10000>;
};
};
};
Just out of curiosity, is the whole SRAM @1a00000 accessible by the CPU?
Does it require the system control SRAM bits to be set, or does that only
affect the portion that SRAM C "borrows"? If it isn't accessible to the
CPU at all, then we might as well not put it in the device tree.
> And I can't change the compatible name, for the fallback, at least.
>
> I can make the new compatible string read
> "allwinner,sun50i-h616-ve-sram", if that helps, but that would mean
> deviating from the H6 and other SoCs.
Matching what the documents say makes more sense to me.
Regards
ChenYu
> Cheers,
> Andre
>
>
> >
> > Also the sram-section node would make more sense if it were in sram_c, as
> > that is the part that gets switched around, not the full region @ 1a00000.
> >
> > ChenYu
> >
> >> Maybe some guys with more VE knowledge can shine some light on this?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andre
> >>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/linux-sunxi/3dc67c21-f649-cca5-ec54-c639c54ee56a%40arm.com.
