[coreboot] Patch set updated for coreboot: 2785a0c AMD F15tn northbridge: Remove the misleading 0x100 from the limitk.

[Zheng Bao]

Zheng Bao ([e-mail]) just uploaded a new patch set to gerrit, which you can find at http://review.coreboot.org/1265

-gerrit

commit 2785a0c0c64b140a1e0a57ca060b7b4d193a91e5
Author: zbao 
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 
    Signed-off-by: zbao 
---
 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;