[U-Boot] [PULL] : Please pull u-boot-imx -- 3 build failures

[Eric Nelson]

On 03/13/2013 03:44 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Fabio.
>>
>>
>> On 03/13/2013 03:40 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Eric Nelson
>>> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Albert,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/13/2013 03:26 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:29:55 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD
>>>>> <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, MAKEALL -a arm fails on three boards: nitrogen6s1g, with an
>>>>> error, and nitrogen6dl2g and nitrogen6q2g, with a warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> nitrogen6s1g:
>>>>>
>>>>> nitrogen6x.c:89:17: error: 'CONFIG_DDR_MB' undeclared (first use in
>>>>> this function)
>>>>> nitrogen6x.c:89:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only
>>>>> once for each function it appears in
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This one's on me.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for not running MAKEALL before submission:
>>>>
>>>> The line beginning with nitrogen6s1g should say "DDR_MB=1024", not
>>>> "SDRAM_MB=1024":
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://git.denx.de/u-boot.git/?p=u-boot/u-boot-imx.git;a=blobdiff;f=boards.cfg;h=fb3b197eef192fe5bf5ecaad8bcca5cab3bf1c43;hp=7a0b79dd072f4b8a8c39fe75d638c4d163bdc385;hb=d67b0d97b156f9ec2fc4c838d84b1e510d6e49b4;hpb=7315e3bf2cc95abf9ae53f43ccbd31c6f638aacd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> nitrogen6dl2g and nitrogen6q2g:
>>>>>
>>>>> nitrogen6x.c:89:38: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking into this now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just fixed it. Will send the patches now.
>>>
>>
>> Something like this?
>>
>> diff --git a/board/boundary/nitrogen6x/nitrogen6x.c
>> b/board/boundary/nitrogen6x/nitrogen6x.c
>> index 0dbb6d2..38e7f78 100644
>> --- a/board/boundary/nitrogen6x/nitrogen6x.c
>> +++ b/board/boundary/nitrogen6x/nitrogen6x.c
>> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>>
>>   int dram_init(void)
>>   {
>> -       gd->ram_size = CONFIG_DDR_MB * 1024 * 1024;
>> +       gd->ram_size = (phys_size_t)CONFIG_DDR_MB * 1024 * 1024;
>
> Yes, but I used (ulong) instead.
>
> Would it be OK?
>

Works for me...

Note that Troy wanted to see DDR_MB expressed as bytes instead,
which would have solved the overflow problem.