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

[Marek Vasut]

Dear 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

0xffffffff is DT boot ID really.

>  * 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.

Can you provide pointer to olinuxino machine entry in RMK's ID database then 
please?

> >> > +/*
> >> > + * 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.

It reduces the size of console buffer, right?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut