From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:03:05 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 3/3] Add support for the LaCie ED Mini V2 board In-Reply-To: <20091205003507.573673F6E3@gemini.denx.de> References: <1258239796-21528-1-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@free.fr> <1258239796-21528-2-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@free.fr> <1258239796-21528-3-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@free.fr> <1258239796-21528-4-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@free.fr> <20091118222158.A05573F6C2@gemini.denx.de> <4B126F68.9020005@free.fr> <20091205003507.573673F6E3@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4B1A05A9.4040104@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk a ?crit : > Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > > In message <4B126F68.9020005@free.fr> you wrote: >>> Cannot you use get_ram_size() for auto-sizing and checking? >> The SoC allows for up to 4 banks of DRAM, not necessarily contiguous. >> Granted, this is not a frequent configuration, however I'd like to >> support it correctly, and the heuristics of get_ram_size() are based on >> the assumption that all DRAM is contiguous. > > No, this is not correct. get_ram_size() is used always on a single > bank of memory only. Do you mean calling get_ram_size() four up to times based on the configured number of banks and configured sizes? I then fail to see the added value of get_ram_size() wrt using the configured sizes directly. >> However I realize that this code is actually SoC-specific, not >> board-specific. It could be moved in cpu/arm926ejs/orion5x/dram.c, and >> then orion5x_sdram_{bar,bs} could be made static (or inlined). >> >> What do you think? > > Seems to make sense. All right. Does doing that lift the requirement to use get_ram_size()? > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk Amicalement, -- Albert.