From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@keymile.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:57:44 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] kirkwood: implement kw_sdram_bs_set()
In-Reply-To: <20120705123942.55dec203@aari01-12>
References: <1340736582-19815-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de><1340969874-12869-1-git-send-email-gerlando.falauto@keymile.com>
	<20120705123942.55dec203@aari01-12>
Message-ID: <4FF57328.2030504@keymile.com>
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

Hi Albert,

On 07/05/2012 12:39 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Gerlando,
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:37:54 +0200, Gerlando Falauto
> <gerlando.falauto@keymile.com>  wrote:
>> Some boards might be equipped with different SDRAM configurations.
>> When that is the case, CPU CS Window Size Register (CS[0]n Size)
>> should be set to the biggest value through board.cfg file; then its
>> value can be fixed at runtime according to the detected SDRAM size.
>>
>> Therefore, implement kw_sdram_bs_set(), to be called for instance
>> within board_early_init_f().
>>
[...]
>
> I don't like isolated patches that seem to create dead code. I know
> here it is not the goal, of course; so why not submit a two-patch
> series, providing both the new code *and* a use for it?
>

You're absolutely right.
But mine was more of an interruption/suggestion throughout the 
discussion between Marek and Prafulla... I just didn't want to take 
credit for someone else's code, or create any conflicts with it.
I figured it might be quicker (and more fair) that way, perhaps with 
Marek resubmitting it within his own series, or SoB-ing it, because in 
fact mine is just a refactoring of his idea...
I can of course submit the two-patch series for our boards, if that's OK 
with Marek.

Thanks,
Gerlando