xilinx_zynq_zc702 vs. xilinx_zynq_zc706 memory map
chrisj at rtems.org
Fri Oct 25 04:56:49 UTC 2019
On 25/10/19 8:41 am, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 24/10/19 7:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 24/10/2019 03:41, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:04 AM Thomas Doerfler
>>> <thomas.doerfler at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>>> most likely the RAM areas have been mapped to the lowest-possible
>>>> non-NULL address, and they can be mapped to an address boundary matching
>>>> the RAM size. zc702 has a 1MByte ram, mapped to the 1MByte boundary,
>>>> zc706 has a 4MByte RAM mapped to the 4MByte boundary.
>>> I don't know what the actual rationale is, but this definitely isn't
>>> it. The DDR physical address mapping is fixed. The lower 256k can be
>>> mapped to DRAM or on-chip SRAM depending on system settings. The
>>> range from 256k - 1M is either inaccessible or mapped to DRAM. The
>>> range from 1M - 4M is always mapped to DRAM. Its an
>>> application-profile processor, which is why the typical sizes are 512M
>>> or 1024M (SoC maximum) for DRAM.
>>> See also Xilinx UG585, section 4.1.
>>> The chip's reset defaults are for 192 kB of OCM to be mapped low, and
>>> 64 kB to be mapped high with address filtering disabled.
>> Yes, the DDR is surly greater than 4MiB. The unused 1MiB starting a 0 is there
>> to catch NULL pointer access (read, write, and execute). Why the
>> xilinx_zynq_zc706 has an unused 4MiB area is not clear to me.
> It is not clear to me either. I am fine with the start address being the same
> for all variants. If nothing else someone may speak up and we will find out the
I have looked into this and there are systems where memory is reserved below the
executable away from RTEMS. This is a valid address for those cases.
I am fine if the base address can be configured.
More information about the devel