[U-Boot] [RFC] ARM: U-boot and 2 GiB of ram with get_ram_size only being long

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hi Scott,

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:57:33 -0500, Scott Wood
<scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 09:12 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> > 
> > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 04:41:31 +0200, Oliver Schinagl
> > <oliver+list@schinagl.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hey all,
> > > 
> > > Having not received any feed back at all, I went ahead and did the 
> > > changes anyway. Everything seems to run and work fine for sunxi and 
> > > prints proper sizes.
> > > 
> > > For the other boards, I tried to run a MAKEALL but there where so many 
> > > random other warnings I can't say for 100% certainty there where no 
> > > mistakes that crept in.
> > 
> > There cannot possibly be a single warning if you're working from an
> > official U-Boot repo, as warnings are considered failures and thus no
> > patch reaches u-boot/master if it causes a warning.
> 
> That might be the theory, but in practice this is simply false.
> Different toolchains produce different warnings, and not all patches
> always get test-built on every target (especially on obscure
> architectures).  And since it's false that no warnings exist, that means
> sometimes even when a patch is test-built, some newly introduced
> warnings get missed (I got an e-mail pointing out such an occurance just
> today).

You are correct that the same code may or may not emit warnings
depending on the toolchain, and that U-Boot's build system won't stop
building because of warnings.

However, when a new toolchain version causes such warnings, but they
are not 'random' in any case; they may be numerous though, if in some
source code used in a lot of boards.

In any case, if Oliver gets warnings, chances are we'll get them to
when applying his code, in which case it'll be rejected, or we'll see
them happening later if he's unsing a common toolchain in a new
version, or he's using an unusual toolchain.

> -Scott

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.