Dear Scott Wood, In message <20100527190340.ga5...@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > Passing the actual, known size of RAM (why guess when we know?) as "maxsize" > should eliminate the machine check problem[1] -- you'd just be using it as a > not particularly exhaustive memory tester. I don't see why it should be > mandatory.
Typically we chose "maxsize" to b twice the actual possible maximum to allow for real testing. > It also doesn't handle non-power-of-two sized memory -- don't rely on the > value it returns. Such configurations are usually set up of from several differently sized banks of memory, and get_ram_size() is always run per bank. So as long as chip manufacturers continue to make RAM chips with power-of-two sizes only, everything should be fine. > [1] It's worse than machine checks, what if some I/O device is mapped > directly after RAM? IIRC people have run into this sort of problem doing > this type of memory sizing on PCs. Well, let's call this a bug in setting up the memory map for the system ;-) Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de When you say "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just stare at you blankly and say "Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*". - Linus Torvalds in <3itc77$...@ninurta.fer.uni-lj.si> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
