From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:18:07 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 01/12] imx: mx6: ddr: return output of
 calibration routines
In-Reply-To: <576B25DE.1090402@denx.de>
References: <1466534502-17233-1-git-send-email-eric@nelint.com>
 <1466534502-17233-2-git-send-email-eric@nelint.com>
 <576B1CD8.2090206@denx.de> <576B24C5.2040003@nelint.com>
 <576B25DE.1090402@denx.de>
Message-ID: <576B2ABF.2030202@nelint.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

On 06/22/2016 04:57 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 06/23/2016 01:52 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On 06/22/2016 04:18 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2016 08:41 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>>> Allow the calibration data from mmdc_do_write_level_calibration
>>>> and mmdc_do_dqs_calibration to be returned to the caller for
>>>> display.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com>
>>>
>>> Why don't you create a separate function to read those params ?
>>>
>>
>> Probably because in my implementation, the calibration routine
>> didn't actually write the registers. It was left to the caller
>> to hand them to mx6_dram_cfg.
>>
>> You're right though. A routine to gather calibration data would
>> be simpler and prevent the "if (calibration)" junk in the two
>> routines.
> 
> Try avoiding polluting the code with the if (calib) junk more :)
> 

Will fix in V2 with the addition of a routine to gather the
calibration data.

This will also remove the need for patch 2/12, but the remainder
could still use some review.