From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:51:23 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 3/3] Add support for the LaCie ED Mini V2
 board
In-Reply-To: <20091207215632.303363F6CC@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>
	<4B1A05A9.4040104@free.fr>
	<20091207215632.303363F6CC@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4B226A7B.6090401@free.fr>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
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 <4B1A05A9.4040104@free.fr> you wrote:
>>> 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 
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 
>> added value of get_ram_size() wrt using the configured sizes directly.
> 
> The added value is that get_ram_size() will detect (1) a lot of common
> error situations and (2) will detect the actual size of the respective
> memory banks.
> 
> Assume you have a system where differentt types of memory chips can be
> fit, or where you can insert memory modules. Then you configure for
> the largest possible type, and get_ram_size() will detect what's
> really present, so you can adjust the configuration. See the README
> for details.
> 
>>>> 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()?
> 
> I see no reason yet why you would not want to use get_ram_size() - the
> memory test feature alone is useful enough, even if you never intend
> to use different RAM sizes.

Ok. Considering the machine would have had fixed sized banks but the SoC 
would not, get_ram_size() indeed makes sense especially if I move the 
code to cpu/arm926ejs/orion5x/dram.c. I'll do that in V4 of the patch, 
once I get complete feedback for V3.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.