On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/07/2013 03:56 PM, Vaibhav Bedia wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (header->magic != 0xEE3355AA) { >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is the header the same as AM335x? Shouldn't it be something >>>>>> like 0xEE3344AA or whatever? >>>>> No, the header is still same. It is 0xEE3355AA. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My question was why ;) >>>> What's the point of adding the same magic value for a different SoC? >>>> Unless there's a good reason for doing so i think this needs to be fixed >>>> in the EEPROM programmer. >>> >>> A magic value is sufficiently magical, I don't think we'll get anyone to >>> change it at this point. >> >> With almost half a dozen of AM335x board variants floating around this >> thing is bound to cause problems eventually. The EEPROM format >> can simply be updated to fix this. If there's a big resistance in doing >> this then we might as well live with it - but i would at least ask once ;) > > The thing is, customers drop the EEPROM or come up with their own, see > the Siemens am335x boards :) >
Customers fix a design and get rid of whatever they can ;) I always considered the EEPROM as one of the ways of maintaining some sanity amongst the numerous board variants that go around internally :P I'll leave this for the right folks to decide then :) Regards, Vaibhav _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot