On 07/03/2014 05:01 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:45:52AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Stephen,
In message 53B47F6F.1090405@wwwdotorg.org you wrote:
Is there a specific reason for not using get_ram_size()?
Since we know the exact RAM size, we may as well simply use it directly rather than "probing" for it.
You _think_ you know the size, but you can never be sure that all this RAM is actually present and working. There has been many discussions before why using get_ram_size() makes a lot of sense even in fixed size RAM configurations.
Right which is why the flow in this case is:
- Read the place that "knows"
- Pass that size to get_ram_size(), use returned value as what we
really know the size to be.
Wolfgang, given Tom's explanation, are you now OK with this patch? TomW would like clarification?
But to address your points: We really do know that the RAM size is equal to what this register says, since at this point in the code, U-Boot is already running in RAM (since our HW's boot ROM initializes RAM and copies U-Boot to it). Any issues with the RAM itself, either bad HW or incorrect configuration, would already have caused a problem just executing any code.