| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
bug=b:260128250
TEST=none
Change-Id: I412044a13f636e87db1d2266b33c9134e746e1a2
Signed-off-by: Nick Vaccaro <nvaccaro@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/76543
Reviewed-by: Subrata Banik <subratabanik@google.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
|
|
This commit adds support for LP5X SPDs. The SPD format is identical to
LP5 except that the memory type is set to 0x15 instead of 0x13. Since
they are essentially the same, LP5/5X parts share the same parts JSON
file and SPD directory. LP5X parts are distinguished by the optional
`lp5x` attribute. This commit also updates two existing LP5X memory
parts with the correct attribute.
BUG=b:242765117
TEST=Generated SPDs, verified that SPDs generated from LP5X parts match
their LP5 counterparts except for memory type byte.
Signed-off-by: Robert Zieba <robertzieba@google.com>
Change-Id: I67df22bc3fd8ea45fe4dad16b8579351eb4d0d8b
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/66839
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Karthik Ramasubramanian <kramasub@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Caveh Jalali <caveh@chromium.org>
|
|
This commit adds the ability to override the SPD file that is used for a
specific part.
BUG=b:224884904
TEST=Verified that generated makefile uses specified SPD file and that
it remains unchanged when this capability is not used
Signed-off-by: Robert Zieba <robertzieba@google.com>
Change-Id: I078dd04fead2bf19f53bc6ca8295187d439adc20
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63281
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Rob Barnes <robbarnes@google.com>
|
|
Currently memory parts that use the same SPD are assigned the same ID by
spd_tools. This commit adds support for exclusive IDs. When given an
exclusive ID a memory part will not share its ID with other parts unless
they also have the same exclusive ID.
BUG=b:225161910
TEST=Ran part_id_gen and checked that exclusive IDs work correctly and
that the current behavior still works in their abscence.
Signed-off-by: Robert Zieba <robertzieba@google.com>
Change-Id: Ife5afe32337f69bc06451ce16238c7a83bc983c8
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/62905
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Karthik Ramasubramanian <kramasub@google.com>
|
|
Add documentation describing how to add support for a new memory
technology to spd_tools:
- Add a section to the README.
- Document the memTech interface in spd_gen.go.
BUG=b:191776301
TEST=None
Signed-off-by: Reka Norman <rekanorman@google.com>
Change-Id: Ie710c1c686ddf5288db35cf43e5f1ac9b1974305
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/59005
Reviewed-by: Karthik Ramasubramanian <kramasub@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Wawrzynczak <twawrzynczak@chromium.org>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
|
|
Add LP5 support to spd_tools. Currently, only Intel Alder Lake (ADL) is
supported.
The SPDs are generated based on a combination of:
- The LPDDR5 spec JESD209-5B.
- The SPD spec SPD4.1.2.M-2 (the LPDDR3/4 spec is used since JEDEC has
not released an SPD spec for LPDDR5).
- Intel recommendations in advisory #616599.
BUG=b:201234943, b:198704251
TEST=Generate the SPD and manifests for a test part, and check that the
SPD matches Intel's expectation. More details in CB:58680.
Change-Id: Ic1e68d44f7c0ad64aa9904b7e1297d24bd5db56e
Signed-off-by: Reka Norman <rekanorman@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/58679
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Karthik Ramasubramanian <kramasub@google.com>
|
|
Combine the existing lp4x and ddr4 READMEs into a single file, and
update it to reflect the new unified version of the tools.
BUG=b:191776301
TEST=None
Change-Id: I866932a1d0b5b6b47b0daff893b37de7a302b4e6
Signed-off-by: Reka Norman <rekanorman@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/57796
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Furquan Shaikh <furquan@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Tim Wawrzynczak <twawrzynczak@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Karthik Ramasubramanian <kramasub@google.com>
|
