On Thursday 12 July 2012 21:37:10 you wrote: > Did not hear any answer to this. Do we get a V3 for this patch? > > Or should I assume that the pversions to pick are V2 for 1/3 and 2/3, > and V3 for 3/3?
Sorry for the late reply. Let me just sort this out. We're talking about three patches: 1/3 set gd->ram_size in dram_init This patch is required for proper operation (without it, u-boot tries to relocate to unused address space). In revising it, I started in on reducing the magic of the RAM initialisation, because that should also be affected by the RAM_SIZE definitions; in the resulting discussion, I believe it was agreed that further cleanup of the magic numbers should be submitted in another patch, which I have barely begun work on. I suggest applying v2 as it uses get_ram_size() as advised by Andreas Bießmann. 2/3 Fix ROM relocation This patch is also required for proper operation - without it, pointers used in board_init_f go to SDRAM when they should go to ROM. v2 still holds a mistake in some comments (should be 48/32 rather than 768/512) but should at least clarify what the code does; do you need me to resubmit a corrected version? 3/3 use common cfi_flash support This patch should not technically be required for the cm4xxx boards; it switches to the common CFI code. It is required to use the cm4008 build on Micrel's own development boards, since they use a different flash and the specialised code simply aborts on unrecognized flash. In conclusion, yes, I think it's suitable to pick these versions, to bring the port up to functional order. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
