On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 00:07, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 01:13:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Ilias,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 09:27, Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 18:10, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 06:02, Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 01:39, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:14:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Ilias, > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 04:41, Ilias Apalodimas > ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > We already have a mem info command, which is pretty useless. Can't we > > reuse that ? > > I am not too keen on using that as 'info' is pretty vague. We could > perhaps create a 'mem' command with 'info' as one subcommand and 'map' > as another?
Are we talking about "meminfo" which literally only prints gd->ram_size? If so, I don't think it's worth worrying about enhancing that.
Yes, that's the one
So, you mean to just delete that command and make it show the memory map instead? Or show the memory size at the top, before the memory map?
I meant the latter, but if you and Tom agree that we should leave it as is, I don't mind adding a new command. I assume that the list above is non exhaustive, so in the future we could expand it with lmb reservations etc?
I sent v2 with that done. The lmb reservations aren't that useful as there are no names attached.
I disagree with names being needed to be useful in this dump.
Yes, +1 here.
-- Tom