[coreboot] Patch set updated for coreboot: 2785a0c AMD F15tn northbridge: Remove the misleading 0x100 from the limitk.
Zheng Bao (zheng.bao@amd.com)
gerrit at coreboot.org
Wed Aug 1 10:39:10 CEST 2012
Zheng Bao (zheng.bao at amd.com) just uploaded a new patch set to gerrit, which you can find at http://review.coreboot.org/1265
-gerrit
commit 2785a0c0c64b140a1e0a57ca060b7b4d193a91e5
Author: zbao <fishbaozi at gmail.com>
Date: Wed Aug 1 18:23:49 2012 +0800
AMD F15tn northbridge: Remove the misleading 0x100 from the limitk.
I dont known if missed something, but why an extra 0x100 was added to limit?
My board would get the wrong memory table entry 7f000000-7fffffff as RAM, which
is higher than TOM.
coreboot memory table:
0. 0000000000000000-0000000000000fff: CONFIGURATION TABLES
1. 0000000000001000-000000000009ffff: RAM
2. 00000000000c0000-000000005e13efff: RAM
3. 000000005e13f000-000000005effffff: CONFIGURATION TABLES
4. 000000005f000000-000000007effffff: RESERVED
5. 000000007f000000-000000007fffffff: RAM
6. 00000000a0000000-00000000afffffff: RESERVED
Ronald G. Minnich:
I think someone who wrote the code was trying to round up the
next 0x100 boundary and did it incorrectly.
Here is code that would do it correctly:
limitk = ((resource_t)((d.mask + 0x00000ff) & 0x1fffff00)) << 9 ;
Zheng:
Plus 0xFF is correct, but the d.mask take bit 0 as enable it.
This bit should be clear when we try to calculate the limitk.
Change-Id: I3848ed5f23001e5bd61a19833650fe13df26eef3
Signed-off-by: Zheng Bao <zheng.bao at amd.com>
Signed-off-by: zbao <fishbaozi at gmail.com>
---
src/northbridge/amd/agesa/family15tn/northbridge.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/northbridge/amd/agesa/family15tn/northbridge.c b/src/northbridge/amd/agesa/family15tn/northbridge.c
index 12aab33..85de812 100644
--- a/src/northbridge/amd/agesa/family15tn/northbridge.c
+++ b/src/northbridge/amd/agesa/family15tn/northbridge.c
@@ -790,7 +790,7 @@ static void domain_set_resources(device_t dev)
if (!(d.mask & 1)) continue;
basek = ((resource_t)(d.base & 0x1fffff00)) << 9; // could overflow, we may lost 6 bit here
- limitk = ((resource_t)((d.mask + 0x00000100) & 0x1fffff00)) << 9 ;
+ limitk = ((resource_t)(((d.mask & ~1) + 0x000FF) & 0x1fffff00)) << 9 ;
sizek = limitk - basek;
More information about the coreboot
mailing list