Hi York,
On 08/12/2014 08:03 PM, York Sun wrote:
On 07/18/2014 02:10 AM, Valentin Longchamp wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On 07/17/2014 02:47 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Valentin,
In message 1405599840-11984-1-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@keymile.com you wrote:
When u-boot initializes the RAM (early in boot) it looks for the "pram" env variable to know which is area it cannot use.
At this early boot stage, the "pram" env variable is not avaible yet since it gets computed in set_km_env that gets called AFTER the RAM initialization. If the "pram" env variable is not found, the default CONFIG_PRAM value is used.
Note that I am not objecting against this patch, but I highly recommend to fix your board - RAM initialization is actually pretty late in the init sequence, and you should have a valid envionment long before.
Maybe my commit message is unclear about this. You are right, at the RAM initialization time, there is a valid environment, and that's the case on our board too.
However, at the very first boot on a board, the environment is empty (or unvalid) and the default one is used where this "pram" env variable is not defined. That's why the CONFIG_PRAM is used in this case and it should be defined. This is not going to be the case at any later boot if a valid environment (with pram defined) is found and used.
Best regards,
Valentin,
How about you update the commit message to explain you are defining the default CONFIG_PRAM for your board in case "pram" variable is not available?
OK, I will do ... even though the commit message already does already state that, just with more details when and why (there was just a missing precision here, "when no valid environment was found") the "pram" env variable can be undefined and why it is important for us to have such a value. But maybe that's too much information ?
Valentin