From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fuchs Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:56:01 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: Some improvements for the FPGA subsystem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711140856.01391.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Bruce, On Tuesday 13 November 2007 19:15, Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com wrote: > > > > Perhaps you guys can give a little ack reply to my five FPGA patches. I > did > > not see any no-go comment on any of them, uuh. > > > > Matthias > > Sorry, in my haste and stupidity I failed to read your entire original > post and see that you had patches :(. > > ACK everything with the following question: > > > - rc = fpga_load(dev, swapdata, swapsize); > - free(swapdata); > + rc = fpga_load(dev, dataptr, swapsize); > return rc; > > I see you're using the size pulled from the BIT file rather than the size > passed into the parameter (which IMOHO is the right way to do it), but you > left the name of the variable as 'swapsize' which isn't really relevant > anymore since there's no swapping going on. I don't care since I know I put this on my list. > what's going on, but it might be cleaner for future generations to rename > it to something more descriptive of what it really is now. Also, on a 'I > REALLY don't care' note, how much work do you think it would be to remove > the requirement of having a size on the command line for this operation? > Since the 'size' parameter is never used, I'd like to see it gone. If > it's too much work, I can do it sometime when I'm bored ;). Just a > thought. You are right. You do not need to pass the size parameter to the 'fpga loadb' command at all. Only 'fpga load' still needs it. Matthias