On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:59:27 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Thu 2015-01-15 01:04:30, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 05:41:01 PM, dinguyen@opensource.altera.com
wrote:
From: Dinh Nguyen dinguyen@opensource.altera.com
Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen dinguyen@opensource.altera.com
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/socfpga/spl.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/socfpga/spl.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/socfpga/spl.c index bf5b682..f0ef6b1 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/socfpga/spl.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/socfpga/spl.c @@ -191,4 +191,12 @@ void spl_board_init(void)
sdram_size = sdram_calculate_size(); printf("SDRAM: %ld MiB\n", (sdram_size >> 20));
- /* Sanity check ensure correct SDRAM size specified */
- puts("SDRAM: Ensuring specified SDRAM size is correct ...");
- if (get_ram_size(0, sdram_size) != sdram_size) {
puts("failed\n");Hi,
you might want to be more verbose about what failed here, possibly include __FILE__ , __func__ and __LINE__ to help identify the problem.
Actually, I'd be against adding file/func/line. This should be easy enough to grep, and we don't normally print that.
In case you have those in place, there's nothing to grep for, you just go straight to the particular point in that particular file. But if there's some kind of a more unique error message than "failed" (which gives ~1500 hits in recent U-Boot source), I'd be content with it.
Best regards, Marek Vasut