[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Ron Madrid]

Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at the beginning of the image
built by start.S that are not being utilized.  This patch moves a few functions
into this part of the image.  This will create a greater number of *available*
bytes that can be used by board specific code in NAND builds and will decrease
the size of the assembled code in other builds.

Signed-off-by: Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
---
 cpu/mpc83xx/start.S |   77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

diff --git a/cpu/mpc83xx/start.S b/cpu/mpc83xx/start.S
index cd566b2..b040e3b 100644
--- a/cpu/mpc83xx/start.S
+++ b/cpu/mpc83xx/start.S
@@ -108,6 +108,45 @@ version_string:
 	.ascii " (", __DATE__, " - ", __TIME__, ")"
 	.ascii " ", CONFIG_IDENT_STRING, "\0"
 
+	.align 2
+
+	.globl enable_addr_trans
+enable_addr_trans:
+	/* enable address translation */
+	mfmsr	r5
+	ori	r5, r5, (MSR_IR | MSR_DR)
+	mtmsr	r5
+	isync
+	blr
+
+	.globl disable_addr_trans
+disable_addr_trans:
+	/* disable address translation */
+	mflr	r4
+	mfmsr	r3
+	andi.	r0, r3, (MSR_IR | MSR_DR)
+	beqlr
+	andc	r3, r3, r0
+	mtspr	SRR0, r4
+	mtspr	SRR1, r3
+	rfi
+
+	.globl get_pvr
+get_pvr:
+	mfspr	r3, PVR
+	blr
+
+	.globl	ppcDWstore
+ppcDWstore:
+	lfd	1, 0(r4)
+	stfd	1, 0(r3)
+	blr
+
+	.globl	ppcDWload
+ppcDWload:
+	lfd	1, 0(r3)
+	stfd	1, 0(r4)
+	blr
 
 #ifndef CONFIG_DEFAULT_IMMR
 #error CONFIG_DEFAULT_IMMR must be defined
@@ -697,27 +736,6 @@ setup_bats:
 
 	blr
 
-	.globl enable_addr_trans
-enable_addr_trans:
-	/* enable address translation */
-	mfmsr	r5
-	ori	r5, r5, (MSR_IR | MSR_DR)
-	mtmsr	r5
-	isync
-	blr
-
-	.globl disable_addr_trans
-disable_addr_trans:
-	/* disable address translation */
-	mflr	r4
-	mfmsr	r3
-	andi.	r0, r3, (MSR_IR | MSR_DR)
-	beqlr
-	andc	r3, r3, r0
-	mtspr	SRR0, r4
-	mtspr	SRR1, r3
-	rfi
-
 /* Cache functions.
  *
  * Note: requires that all cache bits in
@@ -795,23 +813,6 @@ flush_dcache:
 	b	1b
 2:	blr
 
-	.globl get_pvr
-get_pvr:
-	mfspr	r3, PVR
-	blr
-
-	.globl	ppcDWstore
-ppcDWstore:
-	lfd	1, 0(r4)
-	stfd	1, 0(r3)
-	blr
-
-	.globl	ppcDWload
-ppcDWload:
-	lfd	1, 0(r3)
-	stfd	1, 0(r4)
-	blr
-
 /*-------------------------------------------------------------------*/
 
 /*
-- 
1.5.5.1

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Jens Gehrlein]

Hi Ron,

Ron Madrid schrieb:
> Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at the beginning of the image
> built by start.S that are not being utilized.

Hmmm, are you sure? What if someone designs a board, where the processor
shall load its reset configuration from a local bus EEPROM, e.g. the
same NOR-Flash containing the U-Boot image (CFG_RESET_SOURCE[0:2] =
000b?

Or did I misunderstand something?

Kind regards,
Jens

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Scott Wood]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:26:03AM +0100, Jens Gehrlein wrote:
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Ron Madrid schrieb:
> > Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at the beginning of the image
> > built by start.S that are not being utilized.
> 
> Hmmm, are you sure? What if someone designs a board, where the processor
> shall load its reset configuration from a local bus EEPROM, e.g. the
> same NOR-Flash containing the U-Boot image (CFG_RESET_SOURCE[0:2] =
> 000b?
> 
> Or did I misunderstand something?

That's covered by the _HRCW_TABLE_ENTRY lines earlier in the file.

-Scott

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Jens Gehrlein]

Hi Scott,

Scott Wood schrieb:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:26:03AM +0100, Jens Gehrlein wrote:
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> Ron Madrid schrieb:
>>> Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at the beginning of the image
>>> built by start.S that are not being utilized.
>> Hmmm, are you sure? What if someone designs a board, where the processor
>> shall load its reset configuration from a local bus EEPROM, e.g. the
>> same NOR-Flash containing the U-Boot image (CFG_RESET_SOURCE[0:2] =
>> 000b?
>>
>> Or did I misunderstand something?
> 
> That's covered by the _HRCW_TABLE_ENTRY lines earlier in the file.

I see. I understood Ron's comment as "first 100 hex bytes".
Thanks for the hint, Scott.

Kind regards,
Jens

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Ron Madrid]

I haven't received any communication about this patch in a while.
Is is still being looked at or did it slip through the cracks?
Or did I miss an email?

Let me know.

Ron


--- On Fri, 12/12/08, Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S
> To: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Cc: "Ron Madrid" <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 1:12 PM
> Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at the
> beginning of the image
> built by start.S that are not being utilized.  This patch
> moves a few functions
> into this part of the image.  This will create a greater
> number of *available*
> bytes that can be used by board specific code in NAND
> builds and will decrease
> the size of the assembled code in other builds.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
> ---
>  cpu/mpc83xx/start.S |   77
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Kim Phillips]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:12:45 -0800
Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at the beginning of the image
> built by start.S that are not being utilized.  This patch moves a few functions
> into this part of the image.  This will create a greater number of *available*
> bytes that can be used by board specific code in NAND builds and will decrease
> the size of the assembled code in other builds.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
> ---

applied to u-boot-mpc83xx next.

Thanks, and sorry for the delay,

Kim

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Ron Madrid]

No worries.  With the holidays and all I figured that it was just delayed.

Since my new board patch is dependent on this being applied is it possible to now resubmit my new board patch?

Thanks.

Ron


--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com> wrote:

> From: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S
> To: "Ron Madrid" <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 4:55 PM
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:12:45 -0800
> Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > Currently there are in excess of 100 bytes located at
> the beginning of the image
> > built by start.S that are not being utilized.  This
> patch moves a few functions
> > into this part of the image.  This will create a
> greater number of *available*
> > bytes that can be used by board specific code in NAND
> builds and will decrease
> > the size of the assembled code in other builds.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ron Madrid
> <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net>
> > ---
> 
> applied to u-boot-mpc83xx next.
> 
> Thanks, and sorry for the delay,
> 
> Kim

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Kim Phillips]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:00:56 -0800 (PST)
Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Since my new board patch is dependent on this being applied is it possible to now resubmit my new board patch?

I thought you'd never ask :)

please base it on u-boot-mpc83xx next.

Kim

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Ron Madrid]

Should this go to the main u-boot mail list or should I send it somewhere else?

Ron


--- On Thu, 1/22/09, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com> wrote:

> From: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@freescale.com>
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S
> To: ron_madrid at sbcglobal.net
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 10:37 AM
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:00:56 -0800 (PST)
> Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > Since my new board patch is dependent on this being
> applied is it possible to now resubmit my new board patch?
> 
> I thought you'd never ask :)
> 
> please base it on u-boot-mpc83xx next.
> 
> Kim

[U-Boot] [PATCH] mpc83xx: Size optimization of start.S

[Kim Phillips]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Ron Madrid <ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Should this go to the main u-boot mail list or should I send it somewhere else?

? this list (the main u-boot ML) is where we review patches for all of
u-boot.

Kim

p.s. please don't top-post.  See
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html