On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
Dear Otavio Salvador,
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
Dear Otavio Salvador,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
This patch adds support for MX23-based Olinuxino board.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com Cc: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br Cc: Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de
MAINTAINERS | 1 + board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/Makefile | 47 +++++++++ board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/mx23_olinuxino.c | 51 ++++++++++ board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/spl_boot.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++ boards.cfg | 1 + include/configs/mx23_olinuxino.h | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 323 insertions(+) create mode 100644 board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/Makefile create mode 100644 board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/mx23_olinuxino.c create mode 100644 board/olimex/mx23_olinuxino/spl_boot.c create mode 100644 include/configs/mx23_olinuxino.h
V2: Add MAINTAINERS entry
Remove CONFIG_MACH_TYPE (as this board is DT-only)In fact it is not DT-only; we support it in linux-imx inside of OE and the images provided by Olinex are also based 2.6.35 so it seems better to define the machine type.
Can be added in a subsequent patch. [...]
I don't think it is the way to go for several reasons, mainly:
- your v1 had this support
0xffffffff is DT boot ID really.
- all sdcards provided by olimex use 2.6.35 kernel (until now)
- the FSL supported kernel is non-DT
So I see no reason to not fix the patch, seriously.
Can you provide pointer to olinuxino machine entry in RMK's ID database then please?
+imx233_olinuxino MACH_IMX233_OLINUXINO IMX233_OLINUXINO 4105
This is from the board patch.
+/*
- U-Boot general configurations
- */
+#define CONFIG_SYS_LONGHELP +#define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */
The SYS_CBSIZE might be smaller I think; we use 256 in sabresd and others which have a much bigger environment so I think it could be reduced.
Can you elaborate what issues this causes please?
It causes nothing except more memory allocation than need. As other bords work fine with less it seems a good option to move to a smaller value. Just it.
It reduces the size of console buffer, right?
AFAIK yes.
-- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br