Attention is currently required from: Hung-Te Lin, Xi Chen, Paul Menzel, Julius Werner, Yu-Ping Wu. Xixi Chen has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334 )
Change subject: soc/mediatek: Pass dram info to cbmem ......................................................................
Patch Set 24:
(12 comments)
File src/soc/mediatek/common/memory.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/d42b4307_d1690557 PS21, Line 29: curr_dram_info
Please remove this.
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/2b7cbc40_23033102 PS21, Line 108: p
channel
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/c7b8f42e_f62a9fa2 PS21, Line 108: p
channel
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/339f9881_e0bf1cc6 PS21, Line 129: void *mem_region_base
struct mem_chip_info *mc;
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/2ffaccfb_40d2bb2e PS21, Line 129: void *mem_region_base
struct mem_chip_info *mc;
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/a6d9e69b_d6b962f8 PS21, Line 131:
Check if curr_ddr_info is NULL.
already remove this
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/9b996371_86bccae9 PS21, Line 132: curr_dram_info
*mc
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/e1914e3b_4ea88f78 PS21, Line 134: ASSERT
assert(mc);
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/bfbb4e63_d2d0d906 PS21, Line 217: ddr_info
The reason to rename to ddr_info is that when the first patch, the name of mem_chip_info is "dram_in […]
Done
File src/soc/mediatek/common/memory.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/2b8f0e64_7b743966 PS22, Line 104: size_t mtk_dram_size(void)
Need to declare this in emi.h.
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/b8406dbe_4e86927a PS22, Line 107:
return 0 if !curr_ddr_info
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/61334/comment/e707a543_8bf22962 PS22, Line 131: ++p;
Like I said above, unfortunately we cannot write it this way. I'd suggest using `p[i]` here.
Done
-
Xixi Chen (Code Review)