Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: mpc85xx: Set TEXT_BASE addresses to real base values

Tom Rini
2022-06-28T13:44:46Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2253 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:18:34AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2022 08:34:58 Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:29:10PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Thursday 16 June 2022 14:19:44 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Currently CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE and CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE addresses are
> > > > manually increased by 0x1000 due to .bootpg section. This section has size
> > > > of 0x1000 bytes and is manually put by linker script before .text section
> > > > (and therefore before base address) when CONFIG_SYS_MPC85XX_NO_RESETVEC is
> > > > set. Due to this fact lot of other config options are manually increased by
> > > > 0x1000 value to make correct layout. Note that entry point is not on
> > > > CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE (image+0x1000) but it is really on address
> > > > CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE-0x1000 (means at the start of the image).
> > > >
> > > > Cleanup handling of .bootpg section when CONFIG_SYS_MPC85XX_NO_RESETVEC is
> > > > set. Put .bootpg code directly into .text section and move text base
> > > > address to the start of .bootpg code. And finally remove +0x1000 value from
> > > > lot of config options. With this removal custom PHDRS is not used anymore,
> > > > so remove it too.
> > > >
> > > > After this change entry point would be at CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE and not at
> > > > address -0x1000 anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on P2020 board with SPL and proper U-Boot.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > PING???
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I thought this was part of fsl-qoriq-2022-6-20-v2 but I see it is
> > not. I really don't want to see this have problems to apply, again.
> > But it probably will if it's not picked up pretty much now. Peng,
> > should I grab this for next? Otherwise someone is going to need to grab
> > this, edit and recountdiff it for it to apply as it's really not fair to
> > ask Pali to rebase it yet again if it doesn't and git also doesn't
> > handle it on a rebase.
>
> Hm... So how to process this?

It's already not applying cleanly, so I've re-applied it and I'm putting
it through CI (along with some aspeed fixes) right now. It should end
up in next later today.

--
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]