[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 3/3] Add support for the LaCie ED Mini V2 board

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
> 
> In message <4B1A05A9.4040104 at 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.