From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:07:41 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: add support for the Freescale P1022DS reference board In-Reply-To: <20100527190340.GA5915@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> References: <1274392909-16422-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <20100520223324.50594CCF026@gemini.denx.de> <4BFC1736.5030902@freescale.com> <20100526201014.97886EAC238@gemini.denx.de> <4BFD837D.2040508@freescale.com> <20100527070235.E8812EAC238@gemini.denx.de> <4BFE823A.1080409@freescale.com> <20100527181118.3C9F7EAC238@gemini.denx.de> <4BFEB922.9040106@freescale.com> <20100527190340.GA5915@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Message-ID: <4BFEC2FD.5050103@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Scott Wood wrote: > Passing the actual, known size of RAM (why guess when we know?) as "maxsize" > should eliminate the machine check problem[1] -- you'd just be using it as a > not particularly exhaustive memory tester. I don't see why it should be > mandatory. The purpose of get_ram_size() is to verify the "known size of RAM". That is, once you think you know how much RAM there is, you ask get_ram_size() to verify that claim. The return value is the true, validated amount of RAM. > It also doesn't handle non-power-of-two sized memory -- don't rely on the > value it returns. Ah, that's a serious limitation. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale