summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/southbridge/intel/bd82x6x/sata.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorzbao <fishbaozi@gmail.com>2012-08-01 18:23:49 +0800
committerRonald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>2012-08-01 17:24:04 +0200
commit9fd183efde9b78ba2f2bf1c1922a3968650b3b05 (patch)
tree16809e9bb531b1cf10ca95e8822993ce9b5e51fa /src/southbridge/intel/bd82x6x/sata.c
parent9edd8e46f5863d6729b7042279737c483143f8ed (diff)
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@amd.com> Signed-off-by: zbao <fishbaozi@gmail.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/1265 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'src/southbridge/intel/bd82x6x/sata.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions