Hi Peter,
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 at 09:26, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 00:27, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 09:36, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 at 19:55, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
The fdt_addr variable is used in extlinux as a fallback devicetree if none is provided by the boot command.
And what about where extlinux isn't used?
The existing mechanism uses the devicetree provided to U-Boot, but in its original, unrelocated position. For the rpi_4 I am using, this is at 2b35ef00 which is not a convenient place in memory, if the ramdisk is large.
U-Boot already deals with this sort of problem by relocating the FDT to a safe address.
So use the control-FDT address instead.
Please re-word the above, it doesn't make sense to me, "the rpi_4 I am using" .... what about the other millions of RPis out there?
Remove the existing comment, which is confusing, since the FDT is not actually passed unmodified to the kernel: U-Boot adds various things using its FDT-fixup mechanism.
Don't remove it, re-word it so it's up to date.
Note that board_get_usable_ram_top() reduces the RAM top for boards with less RAM. This behaviour is left unchanged as there is no other mechanism for U-Boot to handle this.
The below looks irrelevant to the patch at hand, it looks like it should be in the cover letter.
Do you have any comments on the code in this series?
I did already comment on it, please go back through your emails ;-)
The only thing I got was some comments about the commit message and the comment for set_fdt_addr(). I sent a new v4 here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241220003447.2913443-6-sj...
My question was really about whether you are happy with the code itself.