[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] arm: implement ELF relocations

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr>]

Le 06/10/2010 08:01, Reinhard Meyer a ?crit :
> To me it looks now like we have dangling use of
>
> CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT and CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC
> all over the source, but it appears to me that they can't really
> work anymore (I have not tested that).

Indeed, CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC should disappear eventually -- it's 
still there only to give board maintainers a way to build with and 
without relocation e.g. for testing purposes, and it was announced that 
it would disappear when relocation makes it into an official release.

As for CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT, it was useful in getting a smaller 
u-boot that would not relocated because it was already at the right 
place to execute; perfect (along with CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT) for 
building a RAM-based, run-where-it-is u-boot.

Now with relocation, we may not need it any more; but you're right that 
it cannot stay if it does not work.

> Although I am not happy to have that removed right now
> (for code size concerns), I would suggest to remove all relocation
> preventing code which should make the code much more readable.

What do you mean by 'relocation-*preventing* code'?

>If really required, a new introduction of a define, mainly changing
>the linker options not to emit relocation information and skipping a
>few lines of relocation business _could_ be introduced.

That would be a cleaner thing, yes.

Right now I don't think that should go into the ELF relocation patch, 
though; I'll make sure CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT either works or goes 
away, but unless instructed otherwise, I won't introduce a system-wide 
"don't relocate" feature.

> Best Regards,
> Reinhard

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.