On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Friday 22 November 2013 01:56 AM, Vaibhav Bedia wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> #define NON_SECURE_SRAM_START 0x402F0400
>>> #define NON_SECURE_SRAM_END 0x40340000
>>> #define SRAM_SCRATCH_SPACE_ADDR 0x4033C000
>>> +#define AM4372_BOARD_NAME_START SRAM_SCRATCH_SPACE_ADDR
>>> +#define AM4372_BOARD_NAME_END SRAM_SCRATCH_SPACE_ADDR + 0xC
>>
>> Why do you need to keep the struct address hardcoded like this?
> FYI, this is not struct address. This is the place where where I am storing
> board name.
> This helps in detecting the board.
> It ll be good to understand the code properly and comment.
My bad. Should have looked closer.
>>
>> [...]
>>> +static inline int board_is_eposevm(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return !strncmp(am43xx_board_name, "AM43EPOS", HDR_NAME_LEN);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline int board_is_gpevm(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return !strncmp(am43xx_board_name, "AM43__GP", HDR_NAME_LEN);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Looks like you got the EEPROM content updated ;)
> There is nothing updated. This is what I have used previously.
> Please recollect your comments properly.
>
Well it would help if you added in a more detailed changelog for the different
variants of the patches highlighting what's changed and if some comment is
being ignored the reason for the same.
Regards,
Vaibhav
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
