Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] Fix AMD 690 HIGH_TABLES

[Myles Watson]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Myles, this is the patch which fixes HIGH_TABLES with UMA.

Thanks.  I've commented in line.
> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> Index: LinuxBIOSv2-asus_m2a-vm/src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c
>
> --- LinuxBIOSv2-asus_m2a-vm/src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c
> (Revision 4776)
> +++ LinuxBIOSv2-asus_m2a-vm/src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c
> (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -839,6 +839,7 @@
>  #if CONFIG_HAVE_HIGH_TABLES==1
>  #define HIGH_TABLES_SIZE 64    // maximum size of high tables in KB

extern uint64_t high_tables_base, high_tables_size;
>

#if CONFIG_SOUTHBRIDGE_AMD_RS690  // I guess this could be board-specific
too, since that's where these variables are defined.
> +extern uint64_t uma_memory_base, uma_memory_size;

#endif
> #endif
>
> static void amdk8_domain_set_resources(device_t dev)
> @@ -1003,7 +1004,9 @@
>                 }
>
> -//             printk_debug("node %d : mmio_basek=%08x, basek=%08x,
> limitk=%08x\n", i, mmio_basek, basek, limitk); //yhlu
>           printk_debug("node %d : uma_memory_base/1024=0x%08x,
>
> mmio_basek=0x%08x, basek=0x%08x, limitk=0x%08x\n", i, uma_memory_base >> 10,
> mmio_basek, basek, limitk);
>           if ((uma_memory_base >> 10) < mmio_basek)
>                   printk_alert("node %d: UMA memory starts below
>
> mmio_basek\n", i);

This will always be true, right?  mmio_basek is the PCI region, which should
always be above the last few MB of RAM.
>            /* See if I need to split the region to accomodate pci
>
> memory space */
>                if ( (basek < 4*1024*1024 ) && (limitk > mmio_basek) ) {
> @@ -1017,7 +1020,7 @@
>  #if CONFIG_HAVE_HIGH_TABLES==1
>                                         if (i==0 && high_tables_base==0) {
>                                        /* Leave some space for ACPI, PIRQ
> and MP tables */
>                                           high_tables_base =
>
> (mmio_basek - HIGH_TABLES_SIZE) * 1024;
>                                           high_tables_base =
>
> ((uma_memory_base >> 10) - HIGH_TABLES_SIZE) * 1024;

No real need to shift it then multiply it again.
>                                            high_tables_size =
>
> HIGH_TABLES_SIZE * 1024;
>                                                 printk_debug(" split: %dK
> table at =%08llx\n", HIGH_TABLES_SIZE,
>
> high_tables_base);
> @@ -1042,6 +1045,9 @@
>                                 sizek -= (4*1024*1024 - mmio_basek);
>                        }
>                }
>           printk_debug("node %d : uma_memory_base/1024=0x%08x,
>
> mmio_basek=0x%08x, basek=0x%08x, limitk=0x%08x\n", i, uma_memory_base >> 10,
> mmio_basek, basek, limitk);
>          /* If sizek == 0, it was split at mmio_basek without a hole.
>           * Don't create an empty ram_resource.
>           */
>
> @@ -1053,7 +1059,7 @@
>                              i, mmio_basek, basek, limitk);
>                if (i==0 && high_tables_base==0) {
>                /* Leave some space for ACPI, PIRQ and MP tables */

#if
>                   high_tables_base = (limitk - HIGH_TABLES_SIZE) *
>
> 1024;

#else
>                   high_tables_base = ((uma_memory_base >> 10) -
>
> HIGH_TABLES_SIZE) * 1024;

#endif
>                    high_tables_size = HIGH_TABLES_SIZE * 1024;
>            }
>
> #endif