Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>
> In message <4b1a05a9.4040...@free.fr> you wrote:
>>> No, this is not correct. get_ram_size() is used always on a single
>>> bank of memory only.
>> Do you mean calling get_ram_size() four up to times based on the
>> configured number of banks and configured sizes? I then fail to see the
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
>> added value of get_ram_size() wrt using the configured sizes directly.
>
> The added value is that get_ram_size() will detect (1) a lot of common
> error situations and (2) will detect the actual size of the respective
> memory banks.
>
> Assume you have a system where differentt types of memory chips can be
> fit, or where you can insert memory modules. Then you configure for
> the largest possible type, and get_ram_size() will detect what's
> really present, so you can adjust the configuration. See the README
> for details.
>
>>>> However I realize that this code is actually SoC-specific, not
>>>> board-specific. It could be moved in cpu/arm926ejs/orion5x/dram.c, and
>>>> then orion5x_sdram_{bar,bs} could be made static (or inlined).
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>> Seems to make sense.
>> All right. Does doing that lift the requirement to use get_ram_size()?
>
> I see no reason yet why you would not want to use get_ram_size() - the
> memory test feature alone is useful enough, even if you never intend
> to use different RAM sizes.
Ok. Considering the machine would have had fixed sized banks but the SoC
would not, get_ram_size() indeed makes sense especially if I move the
code to cpu/arm926ejs/orion5x/dram.c. I'll do that in V4 of the patch,
once I get complete feedback for V3.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
