Dear Eric Nelson,
In message 513C9755.3040802@boundarydevices.com you wrote:
I see this new code does not reference imx_ddr_size() any more. If it's so easy to switch to get_ram_size(), should we not then also convert the existing MX53 and MX6 boards to using get_ram_size(), and remove the then unneeded imx_ddr_size() code?
Or would there be any drawbacks?
In the specific case of Nitrogen6X, we're defining different configurations for each of the memory arrangements, so we could skip the call to imx_ddr_size().
Well, that was the starting point of my questions - don;t you want to have a single image runnign on all of your systems? That's exactly get_ram_size() has been made for...
For that matter, we could skip the call to get_ram_size() entirely because we're configuring each of the DDR settings very explicitly.
get_ram_size() is not about configuring, but about verifying / checking the result of such a configuration.
Since there are timing difference between the x128M and x256M DDR chips we're using, we've split them off into separate files:
That's OK - but this is still no reason not to support all these configurations in a single U-Boot image. After all, this is exactly how U-Boot has been designed right from the beginning.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk