Hello Wolfgang
My board has 0x10000000 bytes of memory, without this patch, bdinfo shows 0x0 bytes of ram, but with this patch it shows the correct amount... maybe the problem is in print_lnum
Best regards
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
In message 1217414549-28700-1-git-send-email-ricardo.ribalda@uam.es you wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado ricardo.ribalda@uam.es
common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/cmd_bdinfo.c b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c index caa467d..583bbc2 100644 --- a/common/cmd_bdinfo.c +++ b/common/cmd_bdinfo.c @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ int do_bdinfo ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *argv[]) print_num ("bd address", (ulong)bd ); #endif print_num ("memstart", bd->bi_memstart );
print_lnum ("memsize", bd->bi_memsize );
print_num ("memsize", bd->bi_memsize ); print_num ("flashstart", bd->bi_flashstart ); print_num ("flashsize", bd->bi_flashsize ); print_num ("flashoffset", bd->bi_flashoffset );This patch is wrong. print_num() takes an ulong argument, but bi_memsize has type phys_size_t.
Rejected.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de "If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others."
- the Dalai Lama