On August 13, 2018 7:08:22 PM GMT+03:00, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:54:30PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:52 PM Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:20:03AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > >> > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Ramon Fried ><[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > From: Ramon Fried <[email protected]> >> > > > >> > > > Instead of relaying on user to configure MEMORY_BANKS_MAX >> > > > correctly, use VLA (variable length array) to accommodate the >> > > > required banks. >> > > >> > > With the kernel actively removing VLAs [1] does it make sense for >us >> > > to use them? >> > >> > Agreed. >> > >> > Also, why is the answer NOT to go back to the way things were with >> > 5e5745465c94 and increase CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS when needed? It >seems >> > >> The whole purpose of my patch was to enable to fixup more banks than >> defined in >> CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS. >> >> Another option would be to add >> +#ifndef MEMORY_BANKS_MAX >> #define MEMORY_BANKS_MAX 4 >> +#endif >> and let the use alter the value in include/configs if necessary. > >I think for our purposes it's best to say that, as the code was >written, >if we need more banks to be configured at build time, they should be. >This may also mean that certain platforms need to bump their default up >in order to support the hardware you're using that shows this issue. >Thanks! I'm confused. To which hardware you're referring to? Do you still think we should revert my patch?
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
