On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:26:19AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Tom, > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Vadim, > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Vadim Bendebury <vben...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > >> This is not a big deal for u-boot (maybe very marginally inefficient > >> when determining the actual memory size). Is this a big deal for > >> kernel? I mean it is easy to squash these seven memory banks into one > >> when filling out the memory node of the device tree, the question is > >> is it even necessary? > > > > I think the kernel can go either way. It can handle 1 big bank or 7 > > banks. The parts that were broken in the past were: > > * U-boot would refuse to tell the kernel about more than 4 banks > > (that's what my patch fixed). > > * The kernel choked if it was told about a bogus 8th bank that started > > at 0 and was 0 bytes big. > > > > What about if we just take my patch to support more than 4 banks > > (Vadim now has good justification for needing it)? ...and then we'll > > fix our U-Boot not to tell the kernel about a bogus 8th bank (that was > > just a bug in our config file). > > Do you think it would be OK to apply my patch now given Vadim's > justification of why we need 7 banks in U-Boot. AKA: we need 7 banks > so banks are a power of 2 and all the same size (which U-Boot > assumes). > > ...or would you prefer not to have it and come up with some other solution?
I think my email must have been lost in the shuffle, see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/240687/ So yes, I've got another fix in mind that should solve this and some other problems. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
