qemu-riscv
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-riscv] [PATCH] riscv: sifive_e: Correct various SoC IP block s


From: Bin Meng
Subject: Re: [Qemu-riscv] [PATCH] riscv: sifive_e: Correct various SoC IP block sizes
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:43:53 +0800

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:14 PM Chih-Min Chao <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:27 AM Bin Meng <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Some of the SoC IP block sizes are wrong. Correct them according
>> to the FE310 manual.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>
>>  hw/riscv/sifive_e.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c b/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c
>> index 2a499d8..9655847 100644
>> --- a/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c
>> +++ b/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c
>> @@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ static const struct MemmapEntry {
>>      hwaddr base;
>>      hwaddr size;
>>  } sifive_e_memmap[] = {
>> -    [SIFIVE_E_DEBUG] =    {        0x0,      0x100 },
>> +    [SIFIVE_E_DEBUG] =    {        0x0,     0x1000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_MROM] =     {     0x1000,     0x2000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_OTP] =      {    0x20000,     0x2000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_CLINT] =    {  0x2000000,    0x10000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_PLIC] =     {  0xc000000,  0x4000000 },
>> -    [SIFIVE_E_AON] =      { 0x10000000,     0x8000 },
>> -    [SIFIVE_E_PRCI] =     { 0x10008000,     0x8000 },
>> +    [SIFIVE_E_AON] =      { 0x10000000,     0x1000 },
>> +    [SIFIVE_E_PRCI] =     { 0x10008000,     0x1000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_OTP_CTRL] = { 0x10010000,     0x1000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_GPIO0] =    { 0x10012000,     0x1000 },
>>      [SIFIVE_E_UART0] =    { 0x10013000,     0x1000 },
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>
> It seems the modification follows  E310-G002(Hifive1 Rev B) spec and the 
> origin is for E310-G000(Hifive1) spec.
> There should be some way to specify different board version with different 
> memory map or we have policy, always support the latest spec.
>

Yes, I checked both specs. The older spec says these bigger sizes,
however their register sizes fit well in the smaller range as well. So
I think the modification works well for both.

Regards,
Bin



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]