From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:13:49 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 09/17] spl/85xx: new SPL support In-Reply-To: <1348531715.25867.31@snotra> References: <1348272087-29608-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <1348272087-29608-10-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <20120924235140.GM1797@bill-the-cat> <1348530864.25867.28@snotra> <20120925000444.GP1797@bill-the-cat> <1348531715.25867.31@snotra> Message-ID: <20120925001349.GR1797@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:08:35PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/24/2012 07:04:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 06:54:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/24/2012 06:51:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >> >On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:19PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> > > >> >> Update CONFIG_RAMBOOT and CONFIG_NAND_SPL references to accept > >> >CONFIG_SPL > >> >> and CONFIG_SPL_BUILD, respectively. CONFIG_NAND_SPL can be > >> >removed once > >> >> the last mpc85xx nand_spl target is gone. > >> >> > >> >> CONFIG_RAMBOOT will need to remain for other use cases, but it > >> >doesn't > >> >> seem right to overload it for meaning SPL as well as nand_spl > >> >does. Even > >> >> if it's somewhat appropriate for the main u-boot, the SPL itself > >> >isn't > >> >> (necessarily) ramboot, and we don't have separate configs for > >> >SPL and > >> >> main u-boot. It was also inconsistent, as other platforms > >such as > >> >> mpc83xx didn't use CONFIG_RAMBOOT in this way. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood > >> >> Cc: Andy Fleming > >> >[snip] > >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds > >> >b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds > >> >> new file mode 100644 > >> >> index 0000000..372195d > >> >> --- /dev/null > >> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds > >> >> @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ > >> >[snip] > >> >> +OUTPUT_ARCH(powerpc) > >> >> +SECTIONS > >> > > >> >Can we add MEMORY declarations like (some) of the ARM linker > >> >scripts do > >> >so when we grow beyond the max size it's a link error? > >> > >> It's already a linker error, because you get an overlap with the > >> reset vector. > > > >OK. Then you can drop the CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE you have later on since > >that's where we check against it. Or did I miss a user of it in the > >series? > > It's used by the definition of CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE/DST > within that same patch. Plus it's nice to document somewhere > prominent, and to conform to standard SPL symbols. OK, just read that part too quick then, thanks for the explanation. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: