From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeroen Hofstee Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 20:43:00 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 12/12] imx: ventana: switch to SPL In-Reply-To: <536A5BCD.9070406@freescale.com> References: <1398716258-8420-1-git-send-email-tharvey@gateworks.com> <1398716258-8420-13-git-send-email-tharvey@gateworks.com> <1399403502.2123.11.camel@yellow> <536A5BCD.9070406@freescale.com> Message-ID: <1399488180.1977.6.camel@yellow> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, On wo, 2014-05-07 at 09:14 -0700, York Sun wrote: > > >> > >> Since Crt0.S already created gd on the stack before calling > >> board_init_f, can't the assignment of gd not simply be removed? > >> Is there anything special about gdata? > > > > That does make sense, but what I find is that York's ocmmit > > dec1861be90c948ea9fb771927d3d26a994d2e20 requires that gd be blanked > > and its not. This causes bus_i2c_init to skip its initialization > > because p->base is not zero. > > > > York, does this make sense? Your patch creates a dependence on > > gd->srdata being blank which isn't the case with the SRAM when booting > > from the IMX6 boot rom. > > > > GD should be cleared (zeroed). Then we don't have this problem. Whoever sets up > gd (board_int_f, cpu_init_f, or others) should make sure gd is cleared. Why > isn't it the case for IMX6 boot rom? > Seems fine to me. Albert, any objection against zeroing gd out in crt0.S? And if not, shouldn't the same be done for arm64. Jeroen