[U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt_support: Use VLA instead of MEMORY_BANKS_MAX

[Ramon Fried]

On August 13, 2018 7:08:22 PM GMT+03:00, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:54:30PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:52 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:20:03AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Ramon Fried
><ramon.fried at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > From: Ramon Fried <ramon.fried at intel.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > Instead of relaying on user to configure MEMORY_BANKS_MAX
>> > > > correctly, use VLA (variable length array) to accommodate the
>> > > > required banks.
>> > >
>> > > With the kernel actively removing VLAs [1] does it make sense for
>us
>> > > to use them?
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Also, why is the answer NOT to go back to the way things were with
>> > 5e5745465c94 and increase CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS when needed?  It
>seems
>> >
>> The whole purpose of my patch was to enable to fixup more banks than
>> defined in
>> CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS.
>> 
>> Another option would be to add
>> +#ifndef MEMORY_BANKS_MAX
>> #define MEMORY_BANKS_MAX 4
>> +#endif
>> and let the use alter the value in include/configs if necessary.
>
>I think for our purposes it's best to say that, as the code was
>written,
>if we need more banks to be configured at build time, they should be.
>This may also mean that certain platforms need to bump their default up
>in order to support the hardware you're using that shows this issue.
>Thanks!
I'm confused. To which hardware you're referring to? Do you still think we should revert my patch? 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.