From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:41:21 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/12] OMAP3 SPL: Add identify_pop_memory function In-Reply-To: <4EBA5E25.50307@compulab.co.il> References: <1320696348-11664-1-git-send-email-trini@ti.com> <1320696348-11664-9-git-send-email-trini@ti.com> <4EB8DE06.3020503@compulab.co.il> <4EB948FE.40107@ti.com> <4EBA5E25.50307@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <4EBAAD31.80409@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 11/09/2011 04:04 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 11/08/11 17:21, Tom Rini wrote: >> On 11/08/2011 12:45 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: >>> On 11/07/11 22:05, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> A number of boards are populated with a PoP chip for both DDR and NAND >>>> memory. So to determine DDR timings the NAND chip needs to be probed >>>> and mfr/id returned to the board to make decisions with. All of this >>>> code is put into spl_pop_probe.c and controlled via >>>> CONFIG_SPL_OMAP3_POP_PROBE. >>> >>> I don't see how POP is different from other types of packages >>> in terms of DRAM. >>> The same thing can be true also for non-POP packages. >>> What I'm saying here is, I understand the necessity of that code, >>> but why call it POP specific? >>> If it is not POP specific, then please call it some other way >>> (e.g. ...DRAM_NAND_PROBE). >>> Also, hypothetically, some other means can be used for DRAM type >>> identification, so it will be a good thing to split it, but again >>> it is only hypothetically and it is only my thoughts, so you don't >>> have to... >> >> Well, that gets at why I called it spl_pop_probe. If you have a POP >> package, this is how you would do the probe. I can see in theory >> wanting to probe NAND as a way to see board rev on a non-POP package, >> but I'd like to see a real example first. > > That's the problem we see in Linux OMAP... > some guys don't think forward and submit stuff on a per case basis, > then when it comes to a bit different case, > they are trying to reuse (which is fine) and end up renaming stuff > all around - generating huge diff stat. > Why not just do the generic stuff from the start of it? > Why wait for a new case? > It is pretty simple, just don't name it POP, so it can serve w/o > any confusion for more cases. I'll do the rename for a v3. I just don't see renaming once another use comes up as a problem, we aren't using CVS anymore ;) -- Tom