[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 13/19] Makefile: u-boot-with-spl.bin: Fix SPL padding

["Benoît Thébaudeau" <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>]

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 5:16:49 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> Hi Poonam, Andy,
> 
> On Friday, February 15, 2013 9:54:19 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> > PAD_TO is not a generic SPL configuration option, so use
> > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE
> > instead.
> > 
> > We want to use --pad-to with a size, but this option expects an address, so
> > use
> > u-boot-spl.bin instead of u-boot-spl as the input file in order to get
> > addresses
> > starting at 0.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Beno?t Th?baudeau <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v7:
> >  - Use u-boot-spl.bin instead of u-boot-spl in order to avoid having to use
> >    --change-addresses.
> > 
> > Changes in v6:
> >  - Fix size passed to --pad-to thanks to --change-addresses.
> > 
> > Changes in v5: None
> > Changes in v4:
> >  - New patch.
> > 
> > Changes in v3: None
> > Changes in v2: None
> > 
> >  Makefile |    3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index a8c7b7b..317dffc 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -486,7 +486,8 @@ $(obj)u-boot.dis:	$(obj)u-boot
> >  		$(OBJDUMP) -d $< > $@
> >  
> >  $(obj)u-boot-with-spl.bin: $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl.bin $(obj)u-boot.bin
> > -		$(OBJCOPY) ${OBJCFLAGS} --pad-to=$(PAD_TO) -O binary
> > $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl
> > $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin
> > +		$(OBJCOPY) ${OBJCFLAGS} --pad-to=$(CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE) \
> > +			-I binary -O binary $< $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin
> >  		cat $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin $(obj)u-boot.bin > $@
> >  		rm $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin
> 
> I would like to let you know what is going on, and to get your feedback for
> this
> patch.
> 
> include/configs/p1_p2_rdb_pc.h seems to be the only current user of
> u-boot-with-spl.bin, triggered for example by the P2020RDB-PC_NAND config.
> 
> Before this patch, PAD_TO was used, but there is no such definition for this
> board for generic SPL, so this board seems broken, all the more none of the
> various values defined for CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE relatively to
> CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE would be compatible with an image built by appending
> U-Boot
> to the generic SPL. Can you confirm?
> 
> This patch won't fix this board, but I want to make sure that it won't be an
> issue for you now or later.

I'm also wondering why there is both generic SPL for NAND and legacy "NAND SPL"
for p1_p2_rdb, all the more the "NAND SPL" version does not seem to be used in
boards.cfg.

Best regards,
Beno?t