Hi Tom, Hi Pali,
(added Pali because of the Nokia RX51 issue)
On 07.08.20 21:21, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
Since commit 86cf1c82850f ("configs: Migrate CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS") & commit 999a772d9f24 ("Kconfig: Migrate CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS"), CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS is always defined with a value (4 is default). It makes no sense to still carry code that is guarded with "#ifndef CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS" (and similar). This patch removes all these unreferenced code paths.
Also complete remove bi_memstart & bi_memsize from the board-info struct. As now bi_dram[] is always enabled and should be used instead. This removes the redundant varriables.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de Cc: Daniel Schwierzeck daniel.schwierzeck@gmail.com Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com Cc: Ramon Fried ramon.fried@gmail.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com Reviewed-by: Daniel Schwierzeck daniel.schwierzeck@gmail.com
I don't see quite how, but this is breaking running test/nokia_rx51_test.sh (or, my fixup of this to apply to current master was wrong, and is what's breaking the test). Please rebase and confirm that test passes as well, thanks!
I've checked the issue with nokia_rx51_test.sh and could not find any issues in the patch. My assumption now is, that the very old Linux kernel (2.6.28) that is used in this Nokia test, still uses the bd_info struct in Linux to pass the memory information (via bd_memstart & bi_memsize), as was also done in the very old PowerPC days. With this patch now and the removal of these fields from bd_info, this might explain why this kernel does not boot any more (no output on the serial console at all).
Pali, could you please check if my assumption is correct here? And if yes, could please switch the test to using a newer kernel version? Or remove the Linux kernel booting from the test?
I've pushed the latest patch version into this branch (based on top of the latest TOT):
https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-marvell/-/commits/remove-con...
The failing Azure CI report can be found here:
https://dev.azure.com/sr0718/u-boot/_build/results?buildId=20&view=resul...
A working Azure report is here for comparison:
https://dev.azure.com/sr0718/u-boot/_build/results?buildId=18&view=resul...
Thanks, Stefan