Tom,
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Doug Anderson dianders@chromium.org wrote:
Vadim,
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Vadim Bendebury vbendeb@chromium.org wrote:
This is not a big deal for u-boot (maybe very marginally inefficient when determining the actual memory size). Is this a big deal for kernel? I mean it is easy to squash these seven memory banks into one when filling out the memory node of the device tree, the question is is it even necessary?
I think the kernel can go either way. It can handle 1 big bank or 7 banks. The parts that were broken in the past were:
- U-boot would refuse to tell the kernel about more than 4 banks
(that's what my patch fixed).
- The kernel choked if it was told about a bogus 8th bank that started
at 0 and was 0 bytes big.
What about if we just take my patch to support more than 4 banks (Vadim now has good justification for needing it)? ...and then we'll fix our U-Boot not to tell the kernel about a bogus 8th bank (that was just a bug in our config file).
Do you think it would be OK to apply my patch now given Vadim's justification of why we need 7 banks in U-Boot. AKA: we need 7 banks so banks are a power of 2 and all the same size (which U-Boot assumes).
...or would you prefer not to have it and come up with some other solution?
Thanks!
-Doug