Le Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:00:13 -0500 (EST), "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012, Eric Bénard wrote: > > > This is the case where u-boot is built with SPL thus reoplacing > > x-load : they always read NAND ID as some XM boards were mounted > > with Numonyx POP which includes NAND and 166MHz RAM when mot XM > > boards have a POP with only 200MHz DDR (and in that case > > manufacturer ID is 0). So even on a XM you need to check the NAND ID > > to set the right RAM settings. > > ah, got it. but what about in a more general case? what if you > have a current, accurate definition for an existing board? then a > *slight* variant of that board comes along, for which some settings in > the defconfig file are simply wrong? > > are there any examples of that in barebox right now? and if not, > how would one handle them? put another way, what if *all* xM boards > had no NAND? then we'd be back to my original question, and it's > still not clear how you'd define that new board for barebox. > if no XM board had NAND, you would simply check the board type using the GPIO sampled and you wouldn't register the nand (line 305 in board-beagle.c) and the fact that the nand driver is enabled is not a problem if the device is not registrered the driver won't be used. Eric -- http://eukrea.com/en/news/104-2012 _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
