-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2013 10:30 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 11/03/2013 15:02, Eric Nelson wrote:
Thanks Stefano,
On 03/11/2013 06:44 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 11/03/2013 14:18, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de wrote:
As set previously, my position is, since RFC patches were pushed in January, that some kind of complexity can be well managed with SPL instead of with very SOC specific code. However, in the meantime I said explicitely that I was not against the current patchset in the form Eric posted now. I understand this can be seen as a temporary solution, but let's increase the number of users using these boards, and taking into account that some other pending patches can help to switch to SPL.
In fact, there also other patchsets that I hope will be merged soon and will make the swicth to SPL easier - I mean Benoit's patches regarding NAND on MX5 and dropping old spl code from some boards.
Just to make sure I understand the plan:
Do you mean that you are willing to accept current Eric's series for adding nitrogen support into 2013.04, and after this we should work on converting it to the SPL mechanism for 2013.07?
IMHO, yes. The long term solution is using SPL, as well as it is already used in other SOCs. But at the moment, I tend to not block the current series, taking into account that we have not yet a i.MX6 board with SPL.
Then I'll forward a V3 (without get_ram_size()).
Do you want me to restrict the number of configurations to the "standard" memory configurations?
Well, this could avoid that we add now a lot of files with the hope that later they will be cleanued up, and then this does not happen
- and further configurations will be added later after switching to
SPL.
Lets go this route AND make sure it's well documented enough that people with their own custom HW can easily adapt the existing examples to meet their setup (and yes, in the near future, work towards migration to SPL).
- -- Tom