From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:23:30 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: Fix __bss_start and __bss_end in linker scripts In-Reply-To: <20130405220402.0a054204@lilith> References: <20130405015438.1382cb09@lilith> <1130429503.1176502.1365133495160.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130405080043.531e1b3d@lilith> <300263803.1207216.1365170206861.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130405160030.GG32357@bill-the-cat> <30209879.1303556.1365183174121.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130405175521.GI32357@bill-the-cat> <20130405211740.72080ec0@lilith> <20130405194408.GK32357@bill-the-cat> <20130405220402.0a054204@lilith> Message-ID: <20130405202330.GL32357@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:04:02PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > The two general ideas of my proposal are: > > 1) to separate testing the image (text,data,rodata,lists) size on the > one hand and the image BSS size on the other hand, and > > 2) to consider that if a target defines an image max size and a BSS > max size, then the image max size does not include the BSS size ; and > if it defined an image max size but no BSS max size, then the image max > size includes the BSS. > > The first idea allows boards with disjoint image and BSS to still check > eahc part's size, a thing not feasible with the current code; the > second idea allows fewer changes, but if one wants CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE > to have a strict meaning, we can drop idea #2 and still keep idea #1. Make it so, thanks! -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: