From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Nelson Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:02:57 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] Add Boundary Devices Nitrogen6X boards In-Reply-To: <513DDFCC.3000303@denx.de> References: <1362873856-14785-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <20130310075948.035BA200642@gemini.denx.de> <513CA21E.1040608@boundarydevices.com> <20130310154511.C066D2010CD@gemini.denx.de> <513CB3F2.6080604@boundarydevices.com> <20130310220352.ED5432010CD@gemini.denx.de> <513D18F3.2010802@boundarydevices.com> <20130311111530.B709220013A@gemini.denx.de> <513DC852.9070806@denx.de> <513DDFCC.3000303@denx.de> Message-ID: <513DE411.4060802@boundarydevices.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Thanks Stefano, On 03/11/2013 06:44 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: > On 11/03/2013 14:18, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> Hi Stefano, >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: >> >>> As set previously, my position is, since RFC patches were pushed in >>> January, that some kind of complexity can be well managed with SPL >>> instead of with very SOC specific code. However, in the meantime I said >>> explicitely that I was not against the current patchset in the form Eric >>> posted now. I understand this can be seen as a temporary solution, but >>> let's increase the number of users using these boards, and taking into >>> account that some other pending patches can help to switch to SPL. >>> >>> In fact, there also other patchsets that I hope will be merged soon and >>> will make the swicth to SPL easier - I mean Benoit's patches regarding >>> NAND on MX5 and dropping old spl code from some boards. >> >> Just to make sure I understand the plan: >> >> Do you mean that you are willing to accept current Eric's series for >> adding nitrogen support into 2013.04, and after this we should work on >> converting it to the SPL mechanism for 2013.07? > > IMHO, yes. The long term solution is using SPL, as well as it is already > used in other SOCs. But at the moment, I tend to not block the current > series, taking into account that we have not yet a i.MX6 board with SPL. > Then I'll forward a V3 (without get_ram_size()). Do you want me to restrict the number of configurations to the "standard" memory configurations? Please advise, Eric