From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Klkx1-0005mV-Q7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:44:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Klkwv-0005l7-9e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:44:10 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35857 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Klkwv-0005l4-5H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:44:05 -0400 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([88.191.76.200]:57889) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Klkwu-00038G-Ua for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:44:05 -0400 Received: from surf (humanoidz.org [82.247.183.72]) by mail.free-electrons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4F96FE53E for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:44:03 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch 4/4] Add Flash support to the Versatile PB platform Message-ID: <20081003154403.736e0e2b@surf> In-Reply-To: <200810021733.11290.paul@codesourcery.com> References: <20081002130214.299833919@free-electrons.com> <20081002130240.174723500@free-electrons.com> <200810021733.11290.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Le Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:33:10 +0100, Paul Brook a =C3=A9crit : > > The RAM size is also hardcoded to 128 MB >=20 > This is wrong. Another solution is to set .ram_require =3D 64 * 1024 * 1024 So that 64 MB will always be allocated for the Flash. To these 64 MB, the user-specified amount of memory is added for the RAM. Is this what you're thinking of ? I don't mind changing my implementation, as I said, these patches are for review. But just saying =C2=AB This is wrong =C2=BB is not helpful, b= ecause it doesn't give any suggestion on how to improve the proposed patch. Frankly, I do not understand what your answer was so harsh. Anyway, thanks for your review, Thomas --=20 Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com