From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:05:57 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v9 18/30] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL In-Reply-To: <870514545.1089503.1364970612486.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> References: <1362596377-5827-1-git-send-email-benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com> <1362596377-5827-18-git-send-email-benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com> <20130331193024.30c3d60c@lilith> <1799660692.1020797.1364776200272.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130401102621.6fb3121d@lilith> <2024071848.1030824.1364821985622.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130401175355.7bd1a4c1@lilith> <870514545.1089503.1364970612486.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> Message-ID: <20130403100557.763e5120@lilith> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Beno?t, On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 08:30:12 +0200 (CEST), Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote: > Hi Albert, > > Here is the v10 bundle for those who want to test: > http://dl.free.fr/vdXBGExyq Thanks, will build-test it ASAP. People with ARM (expecially tx25 and mx31pdk) and non-ARM boards please run-test it too. > The resulting HEAD is identical to yours, except for > board/freescale/mx31ads/u-boot.lds in which you had removed the following > unrelated line for 30/30: > __bss_end = .; > > Regarding this line, it is also present in a few other .lds, as well as the > following ones: > KEEP(*(.__bss_start)); > KEEP(*(__bss_end)); > > However, the end section is named .__bss_end in arch/arm/lib/bss.c, so there is > perhaps something wrong here, unless you did that on purpose because of the > __bss_end test at the end of the linker script. I had noticed that, but I let > you handle it. If something needs to be changed here, please do it after my > series if possible in order to avoid a v11 because of newer rebase conflicts. ;) Normally, defining __bss_end symbols in the ARM lds files has become unnecessary as arch/arm/lib/bss.c now defines then (and in so doing avoids generating ugly R_ARM_ABS32 relocation records) so yes, the line removal was intentional, but indeed unrelated to your series. As for the missing period in the .__bss_end input section specification, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll give it a look at once as this could lead to tricky bugs popping up... > I have also noticed that patman is broken in u-boot-arm/master. I don't know if > this has already been fixed somewhere, but it fails with an internal error while > running checkpatch, as if an incompatible API change had been made to checkpatch > recently, and not propagated to patman. Cc:ing Simon Glass on patman. Note: u-boot-arm/master is pretty close to u-boot/master at the moment. > Best regards, > Beno?t Amicalement, -- Albert.