Tegra210 starts its drive group registers at a different offset from the
APB MISC register block that other SoCs. Update the code to handle this.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
T210 support HSM and Schmitt options in the pinmux register (previous
chips placed these options in the drive group register). Update the
code to handle this.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
Tegra210 moves some bits around in the pinmux registers. Update the code
to handle this.
This doesn't attempt to address the issues with the group-to-group varying
drive group register layout mentioned earlier. This patch handles the
SoC-to-SoC differences in the mux register layout.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
On some future SoCs, some per-drive-group features became per-pin
features. Move all type definitions early in the header so they can
be enabled irrespective of the setting of TEGRA_PMX_SOC_HAS_DRVGRPS.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
On some future SoCs, some of the per-drive-group features no longer
exist. Add some ifdefs to support this.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
Future SoCs have a slightly different combination of pinmux options per
pin. This will be simpler to handle if we simply have one define per
option, rather than grouping various options together, in combinations
that don't align with future chips.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
Tegra's drive group registers have a remarkably inconsistent layout. The
current U-Boot driver doesn't take this into account at all. Add a
comment to describe the issue, so at least anyone debugging the driver
will be aware of this. To solve this, we'd need to add a per-drive-group
data structure describing the layout for the individual register. Since
we don't set up too many drive groups in U-Boot at present, this
hopefully isn't causing too much practical issue. Still, we probably need
to fix this sometime.
Wth Tegra210, the register layout becomes almost entirely consistent, so
this problem partially solves itself over time.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
This is needed to correctly apply the new Jetson TK1 pinmux config.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
When the CPU is in non-secure (NS) mode (when running U-Boot under a
secure monitor), certain actions cannot be taken, since they would need
to write to secure-only registers. One example is configuring the ARM
architectural timer's CNTFRQ register.
We could support this in one of two ways:
1) Compile twice, once for secure mode (in which case anything goes) and
once for non-secure mode (in which case certain actions are disabled).
This complicates things, since everyone needs to keep track of
different U-Boot binaries for different situations.
2) Detect NS mode at run-time, and optionally skip any impossible actions.
This has the advantage of a single U-Boot binary working in all cases.
(2) is not possible on ARM in general, since there's no architectural way
to detect secure-vs-non-secure. However, there is a Tegra-specific way to
detect this.
This patches uses that feature to detect secure vs. NS mode on Tegra, and
uses that to:
* Skip the ARM arch timer initialization.
* Set/clear an environment variable so that boot scripts can take
different action depending on which mode the CPU is in. This might be
something like:
if CPU is secure:
load secure monitor code into RAM.
boot secure monitor.
secure monitor will restart (a new copy of) U-Boot in NS mode.
else:
execute normal boot process
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
Some systems have so much RAM that the end of RAM is beyond 4GB. An
example would be a Tegra124 system (where RAM starts at 2GB physical)
that has more than 2GB of RAM.
In this case, we want gd->ram_size to represent the actual RAM size, so
that the actual RAM size is passed to the OS. This is useful if the OS
implements LPAE, and can actually use the "extra" RAM.
However, we can't use get_ram_size() to verify the actual amount of RAM
present on such systems, since some of the RAM can't be accesses, which
confuses that function. Avoid calling get_ram_size() when the RAM size
is too large for it to work correctly. It's never actually needed anyway,
since there's no reason for the BCT to report the wrong RAM size.
In systems with >=4GB RAM, we still need to clip the reported RAM size
since U-Boot uses a 32-bit variable to represent the RAM size in bytes.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
size_mb is used to hold a value that's sometimes KB, sometimes MB,
and sometimes bytes. Use separate correctly named variables to avoid
confusion here. Also fix indentation of a conditional statement.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren@nvidia.com>
Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so
"!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL_BUILD" are redundant.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, TPL). There were
actually two options, "single .config" and "multiple .config".
After some discussions and thought experiments, I chose the latter,
i.e. to create ".config", "spl/.config", "tpl/.config" for Normal,
SPL, TPL, respectively.
It is true that the "multiple .config" strategy provided us the
maximum flexibility and helped to avoid duplicating CONFIGs among
Normal, SPL, TPL, but I have noticed some fatal problems:
[1] It is impossible to share CONFIG options across the images.
If you change the configuration of Main image, you often have to
adjust some SPL configurations correspondingly. Currently, we
cannot handle the dependencies between them. It means one of the
biggest advantages of Kconfig is lost.
[2] It is too painful to change both ".config" and "spl/.config".
Sunxi guys started to work around this problem by creating a new
configuration target. Commit cbdd9a9737 (sunxi: kconfig: Add
%_felconfig rule to enable FEL build of sunxi platforms.) added
"make *_felconfig" to enable CONFIG_SPL_FEL on both images.
Changing the configuration of multiple images in one command is a
generic demand. The current implementation cannot propose any
good solution about this.
[3] Kconfig files are getting ugly and difficult to understand.
Commit b724bd7d63 (dm: Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN to
Kconfig) has sprinkled "if !SPL_BUILD" over the Kconfig files.
[4] The build system got more complicated than it should be.
To adjust Linux-originated Kconfig to U-Boot, the helper script
"scripts/multiconfig.sh" was introduced. Writing a complicated
text processor is a shell script sometimes caused problems.
Now I believe the "single .config" will serve us better. With it,
all the problems above would go away. Instead, we will have to add
some CONFIG_SPL_* (and CONFIG_TPL_*) options such as CONFIG_SPL_DM,
but we will not have much. Anyway, this is what we do now in
scripts/Makefile.spl.
I admit my mistake with my apology and this commit switches to the
single .config configuration.
It is not so difficult to do that:
- Remove unnecessary processings from scripts/multiconfig.sh
This file will remain for a while to support the current defconfig
format. It will be removed after more cleanups are done.
- Adjust some makefiles and Kconfigs
- Add some entries to include/config_uncmd_spl.h and the new file
scripts/Makefile.uncmd_spl. Some CONFIG options that are not
supported on SPL must be disabled because one .config is shared
between SPL and U-Boot proper going forward. I know this is not
a beautiful solution and I think we can do better, but let's see
how much we will have to describe them.
- update doc/README.kconfig
More cleaning up patches will follow this.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
