On 03/12/2020 16:20, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
Hi,
> 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>;
> };
> };
OK, I am taking this version, but am dropping the sram_c_ve subnode,
until we know where it is, what we actually need and until we can test it.
> Another variant, trying to describe the aliasing, though it seems
> quite confusing:
I don't know the exact nature of the aliasing, only that there is some.
>
> 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?
I have no clue, but I would guess not, since I doubt that it's actually
2MB in size. I just played around a bit with it from U-Boot, and found
strings from the SPL in there.
> 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.
Yeah, that's another option I am thinking about.
>
>> 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.
I will just delay this decision by not using that string in the first
place ;-)
Thanks!
Andre
>
> 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.
