[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[Stefan Roese]

The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step
closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But
on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation.
So revert back to the original version for now.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
---
 lib_ppc/board.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib_ppc/board.c b/lib_ppc/board.c
index 7d33914..b2bc4eb 100644
--- a/lib_ppc/board.c
+++ b/lib_ppc/board.c
@@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ void board_init_f (ulong bootflag)
 	 *  - monitor code
 	 *  - board info struct
 	 */
-	len = (ulong)&_end - (ulong)&_start + EXC_OFF_SYS_RESET;
+	len = (ulong)&_end - CFG_MONITOR_BASE;
 
 	/*
 	 * Subtract specified amount of memory to hide so that it won't
-- 
1.5.5

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[Kim Phillips]

On Wed,  9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200
Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> wrote:

> The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step
> closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But
> on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation.
> So revert back to the original version for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>

Acked-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>

Kim

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[Kim Phillips]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:02 -0500
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com> wrote:

> On Wed,  9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200
> Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> wrote:
> 
> > The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step
> > closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But
> > on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation.
> > So revert back to the original version for now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
> 
> Acked-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>
> 
hmm..I seem to have false-acked this due to a bug in a build script of
mine.

Currently WD's top of tree renders 83xx kaput.  When I revert this
revert plus Joakim's original 70431e8 commit, things are back to
normal.  I'm not going to pretend I know to fix it up correctly, so
does anyone have a problem with me sending two revert patches until
relocation is properly and comprehensively fixed?

Kim

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips at freescale.com]
> Sent: den 21 april 2008 23:05
> To: Kim Phillips
> Cc: Stefan Roese; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net; joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of
> CFG_MONITOR_BASE
> 
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:02 -0500
> Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed,  9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200
> > Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step
> > > closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But
> > > on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation.
> > > So revert back to the original version for now.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
> >
> > Acked-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>
> >
> hmm..I seem to have false-acked this due to a bug in a build script of
> mine.
> 
> Currently WD's top of tree renders 83xx kaput.  When I revert this
> revert plus Joakim's original 70431e8 commit, things are back to
> normal.  I'm not going to pretend I know to fix it up correctly, so
> does anyone have a problem with me sending two revert patches until
> relocation is properly and comprehensively fixed?

Strange, I got a 8321 and it worked for me. Maybe a toolchain issue? Perhaps
I got something extra in my board port, dunno what though.

If you revert it we are probably not going to solve it. I got no clue
though. Are any other 83xx users out there?

 Jocke

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[Kim Phillips]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:49:57 +0200
"Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:

> > Currently WD's top of tree renders 83xx kaput.  When I revert this
> > revert plus Joakim's original 70431e8 commit, things are back to
> > normal.  I'm not going to pretend I know to fix it up correctly, so
> > does anyone have a problem with me sending two revert patches until
> > relocation is properly and comprehensively fixed?
> 
> Strange, I got a 8321 and it worked for me. Maybe a toolchain issue? Perhaps
> I got something extra in my board port, dunno what though.
> 
I just reconfirmed it using WD's TOT w/gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red
Hat 4.1.2-27).

Kim

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips at freescale.com]
> Sent: den 22 april 2008 19:28
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: 'Stefan Roese'; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of
> CFG_MONITOR_BASE
> 
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:49:57 +0200
> "Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> 
> > > Currently WD's top of tree renders 83xx kaput.  When I revert this
> > > revert plus Joakim's original 70431e8 commit, things are back to
> > > normal.  I'm not going to pretend I know to fix it up correctly, so
> > > does anyone have a problem with me sending two revert patches until
> > > relocation is properly and comprehensively fixed?
> >
> > Strange, I got a 8321 and it worked for me. Maybe a toolchain issue? Perhaps
> > I got something extra in my board port, dunno what though.
> >
> I just reconfirmed it using WD's TOT w/gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red
> Hat 4.1.2-27).

Got gcc 3.4.6 here, so I guess there is some difference between them(or perhaps
ld). Can't help you, so do as you wish.

   Jocke