On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 7:22 PM Ramon Fried <ramon.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On August 13, 2018 7:15:14 PM GMT+03:00, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 07:14:00PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote: > >> On August 13, 2018 7:08:22 PM GMT+03:00, Tom Rini > ><tr...@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 <tr...@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.fr...@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > > From: Ramon Fried <ramon.fr...@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? > > > >Yes, I think we should bring the code back to the way it was for a long > >while. And I assume there was a specific piece of hardware that > >triggered this round of changes? > Yes. Dragonboards. > I can implement this fixup function in the snapdragon arch folder. > > Tom, a last effort to reduce code duplication. is this acceptable ? #if CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS > 4 #define MEMORY_BANKS_MAX CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS #else #define MEMORY_BANKS_MAX 4 #endif -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot