From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:58:08 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] AT91SAM9*: Change kernel address in dataflash to match u-boot's size In-Reply-To: <49F9F0AD-514C-4092-9764-DF100251A433@emagii.com> References: <4F424402.104@aribaud.net> <1329756057-2868-1-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@piout.net> <4F4BA04E.7050200@emagii.com> <20120228225753.GA16686@piout.net> <49F9F0AD-514C-4092-9764-DF100251A433@emagii.com> Message-ID: <20120229085807.GA20362@piout.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:50:18AM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote : > > > >> 2. Std AT91bootstrap loads U-Boot from 0x8400 > >> so your patch breaks 99% of all SAM9 boards. > >> > > > > Those boards are broken anyway ! > > No they are not. > The partitioning gives you some hint on where to store the kernel, > but you can store the kernel at any suitable address. > you lose some conveniance, but thats all. > > Storing U-boot at any other address than 0x8400, means that AT91bootstrap > must be modified, and there is significant disadvantages in having two possible u-boot locations. > if you have an at91bootstrap binary, will this use the old or new location? > I fail to see any benefit in moving, so that > > > > > As u-boot is bigger than the load size > > of at91bootstrap (0x33900 by default). So, not changing means that you > > are screwed after flashing a new u-boot > > IIRC, The latest bootstrap with Kconfig has configurable size. > Changing size is OK, changing location is not. > > Doesn't that mean that you then have to recompile/reflash at91bootstrap and so that the boards are broken using the latest ut-boot ? I couldn't get my board working with the stock at91bootstrap because it cannot load u-boot. It has to be fixed or I don't see the point in keeping those configs. If we don't want to change the location, and I can understand the reasons why, then was my first patch ok ? http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-January/114485.html I'd like to see that fixed so that I could integrate it properly in buildroot... > > > >> If you want to grow U-Boot, then > >> > >> bootstrap 0x00000000 ; 16 kB > >> ubootenv 0x00004200 ; 16 kB - Should be plenty > >> uboot 0x00008400 ; > >> kernel 0x00063000 ; Why waste space... > >> > > > > What about the redundant env ? Why shouldn't we reorder u-boot and its > > env ? > > Because it adds problems without any benefits. > When I looked the last time, the environment is only 8 pages, > So you can fit a redundant environment anyway in 16 kB+} > -- Alexandre Belloni