From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felix Radensky Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:10:19 +0300 Subject: [U-Boot] Incorrect CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN on MPC85xx boards In-Reply-To: <1EE59B9E-E1E5-4790-81DE-CE9C9AF76310@kernel.crashing.org> References: <4A8D2A1D.2080300@embedded-sol.com> <15441F0C-BCE7-4490-8DB5-138E8E1359C7@kernel.crashing.org> <4A910F8A.7070803@embedded-sol.com> <1EE59B9E-E1E5-4790-81DE-CE9C9AF76310@kernel.crashing.org> Message-ID: <4A92AD5B.4060809@embedded-sol.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, Kumar Kumar Gala wrote: > Its defined differently on these boards (and all our future board > ports) since after relocation and such we have the FLASH @ > 0xe800_0000. And thus the u-boot image is at @ 0xeff8_0000. Thanks for the explanation. Out of curiosity, I've tried to set FLASH physical address on MPC8536DS to 0xf800_0000 and modify TEXT_BASE to 0xfff8_0000. But that resulted in non-bootable system (no u-boot messages at all). What did I miss ? Thanks. Felix. > > - k > > On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:44 AM, Felix Radensky wrote: > >> Hi, Kumar >> >> I don't see any immediate problem with current FSL definitions >> except they are confusing. >> >> I think my proposal will not work on platforms like MPC8572, >> MPC8536, and P2020DS where TEXT_BASE is defined as >> 0xeff80000 instead of 0xfff80000. Can you please explain the >> reason why TEXT_BASE defined differently for these boards. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Felix. >> >> Kumar Gala wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Felix Radensky wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> All FSL MPC85xx boards define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN as 256K >>>> although actual size of u-boot binary is 512K. XES Xpedite boards >>>> seem to do >>>> the right thing. >>>> >>>> I was wandering whether CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN for 85xx boards >>>> can be defined in terms of CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE, similar to AMCC >>>> boards ? >>>> >>>> #define CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN (0xFFFFFFFF - >>>> CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE + 1) >>> >>> I don't have any issue w/such a fix but would like to know what the >>> implication is of having thing set the way we do on the FSL boards. >>> Is there some bug we'd hit? >> I don't think there's some bug >>> >>> - k >