Tom, On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote: > Vadim, > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Vadim Bendebury <vben...@chromium.org> wrote: >> This is not a big deal for u-boot (maybe very marginally inefficient >> when determining the actual memory size). Is this a big deal for >> kernel? I mean it is easy to squash these seven memory banks into one >> when filling out the memory node of the device tree, the question is >> is it even necessary? > > I think the kernel can go either way. It can handle 1 big bank or 7 > banks. The parts that were broken in the past were: > * U-boot would refuse to tell the kernel about more than 4 banks > (that's what my patch fixed). > * The kernel choked if it was told about a bogus 8th bank that started > at 0 and was 0 bytes big. > > What about if we just take my patch to support more than 4 banks > (Vadim now has good justification for needing it)? ...and then we'll > fix our U-Boot not to tell the kernel about a bogus 8th bank (that was > just a bug in our config file).
Do you think it would be OK to apply my patch now given Vadim's justification of why we need 7 banks in U-Boot. AKA: we need 7 banks so banks are a power of 2 and all the same size (which U-Boot assumes). ...or would you prefer not to have it and come up with some other solution? Thanks! -Doug _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot