[U-Boot] [PATCH 01/14] arm, omap3: Define save_boot_params in lowlevel_init.S for SPL only

Marek Vasut
2012-03-05T18:49:52Z

Dear Tom Rini,

> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:37:06PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 24 January 2012 15:27:58 Pali Roh?r wrote:
> > > >> * Hide function save_boot_params if CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined
> > > >> (function do nothing)
> > > >>
> > > >> * Same behaviour as in file arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap4/lowlevel_init.S
> > > >> * This allow to implement board specified function save_boot_params
> > > >> in board code
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>
> > > >> Changes since original version:
> > > >> - Fixed commit message
> > > >>
> > > >> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap3/lowlevel_init.S | 4 ++--
> > > >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap3/lowlevel_init.S
> > > >> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap3/lowlevel_init.S index 2f6930b..c42c5dd
> > > >> 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap3/lowlevel_init.S
> > > >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap3/lowlevel_init.S
> > > >> @@ -35,15 +35,15 @@
> > > >>
> > > >> _TEXT_BASE:
> > > >> .word CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE /* sdram load addr from
> > > >> config.mk
> > > >>
> > > >> */
> > > >>
> > > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> > > >>
> > > >> .global save_boot_params
> > > >>
> > > >> save_boot_params:
> > > >> -#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> > > >>
> > > >> ldr r4, =omap3_boot_device
> > > >> ldr r5, [r0, #0x4]
> > > >> and r5, r5, #0xff
> > > >> str r5, [r4]
> > > >>
> > > >> -#endif
> > > >>
> > > >> bx lr
> > > >>
> > > >> +#endif
> > > >>
> > > >> .global omap3_gp_romcode_call
> > > >
> > > >> omap3_gp_romcode_call:
> > > > Now I see that somebody commited this patch to u-boot:
> > > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-
> > > > boot.git;a=commit;h=204705111ca10f52f62e1a02ba567d8fc33a6d1e
> > > >
> > > > So I will not include it in new version.
> > > >
> > > > Please, can you inform me when somebody commit my patches to git
> > > > master?
> > >
> > > I did: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/137559/ :)
> >
> > Do we really want this hack-around? Maybe generating such bootargs by
> > uboot in the first place (or the ability to actually source bootargs and
> > adjust env accordingly) won't be too bad of a solution?
>
> IMHO, yes. There is value in being able to use u-boot as a useful shim
> when we don't control 100% of the sequence.

Well ... I won't argue, it's your start.S that's gonne be bloated ;-)

Best regards,
Marek Vasut