[U-Boot] [PATCH 16/18 V2] mxs: Add MX23 olinuxino board support

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Otavio Salvador,
>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>> > This patch adds support for MX23-based Olinuxino board.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
>> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam at freescale.com>
>> > Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>
>> > Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de>
>> > ---
>> >
>> >  MAINTAINERS                                  |    1 +
>> >  board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/Makefile         |   47 +++++++++
>> >  board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/mx23_olinuxino.c |   51 ++++++++++
>> >  board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/spl_boot.c       |   90 +++++++++++++++++
>> >  boards.cfg                                   |    1 +
>> >  include/configs/mx23_olinuxino.h             |  133
>> >  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 323 insertions(+)
>> >  create mode 100644 board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/Makefile
>> >  create mode 100644 board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/mx23_olinuxino.c
>> >  create mode 100644 board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/spl_boot.c
>> >  create mode 100644 include/configs/mx23_olinuxino.h
>> >
>> > V2: Add MAINTAINERS entry
>> >
>> >     Remove CONFIG_MACH_TYPE (as this board is DT-only)
>>
>> In fact it is not DT-only; we support it in linux-imx inside of OE and
>> the images provided by Olinex are also based 2.6.35 so it seems better
>> to define the machine type.
>
> Can be added in a subsequent patch.
> [...]

I don't think it is the way to go for several reasons, mainly:

 * your v1 had this support
 * all sdcards provided by olimex use 2.6.35 kernel (until now)
 * the FSL supported kernel is non-DT

So I see no reason to not fix the patch, seriously.

>> > +/*
>> > + * U-Boot general configurations
>> > + */
>> > +#define        CONFIG_SYS_LONGHELP
>> > +#define        CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT       "=> "
>> > +#define        CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE       1024            /* Console I/O
>> > buffer size */
>>
>> The  SYS_CBSIZE might be smaller I think; we use 256 in sabresd and
>> others which have a much bigger environment so I think it could be
>> reduced.
>
> Can you elaborate what issues this causes please?

It causes nothing except more memory allocation than need. As other
bords work fine with less it seems a good option to move to a smaller
value. Just it.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br