* [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support
@ 2010-09-22 13:16 Nick Thompson
2010-09-22 13:43 ` Ben Gardiner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Thompson @ 2010-09-22 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Fixes build breakage in da830evm after commit
97003756249bd790910417eb66f0039bbf06a02c "da8xx: fixup ARM
relocation support"
The da8xx fixup commit changed da830/da850 common code to make
relocation work in da850, but didn't add the required defines
to da830evm_config.h resulting in build failure in the common code.
This patch adds those defines for da830, but makes no sense without
also referring to the commit mentioned above.
Signed-off-by: Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com>
---
include/configs/da830evm.h | 11 +++++++++--
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/configs/da830evm.h b/include/configs/da830evm.h
index 160ece2..b281e5f 100644
--- a/include/configs/da830evm.h
+++ b/include/configs/da830evm.h
@@ -48,8 +48,7 @@
*/
#define CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_LEN (0x10000 + 1*1024*1024) /* malloc() len */
#define CONFIG_SYS_GBL_DATA_SIZE 128 /* reserved for initial data */
-#define PHYS_SDRAM_1 DAVINCI_DDR_EMIF_DATA_BASE /* DDR Start */
-#define PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE (64 << 20) /* SDRAM size 64MB */
+#define PHYS_SDRAM_1 0xc0000000 /* SDRAM Start */
#define CONFIG_SYS_MEMTEST_START PHYS_SDRAM_1 /* memtest start addr */
#define CONFIG_SYS_MEMTEST_END (PHYS_SDRAM_1 + 16*1024*1024) /* 16MB test */
#define CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS 1 /* we have 1 bank of DRAM */
@@ -281,4 +280,12 @@
"mtdparts=davinci_nand.1:" PART_BOOT PART_PARAMS PART_KERNEL PART_REST
#endif
+#define CONFIG_MAX_RAM_BANK_SIZE (512 << 20) /* max size from SPRS586*/
+
+/* additions for new relocation code, must be added to all boards */
+#undef CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC
+#define CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE PHYS_SDRAM_1
+#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR \
+ (CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE + 0x1000 - CONFIG_SYS_GBL_DATA_SIZE)
+
#endif /* __CONFIG_H */
--
1.7.0.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support
2010-09-22 13:16 [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support Nick Thompson
@ 2010-09-22 13:43 ` Ben Gardiner
2010-09-22 14:15 ` Nick Thompson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Gardiner @ 2010-09-22 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
> Fixes build breakage in da830evm after commit
> 97003756249bd790910417eb66f0039bbf06a02c "da8xx: fixup ARM
> relocation support"
>
> The da8xx fixup commit changed da830/da850 common code to make
> relocation work in da850, but didn't add the required defines
> to da830evm_config.h resulting in build failure in the common code.
>
> This patch adds those defines for da830, but makes no sense without
> also referring to the commit mentioned above.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com>
Sorry that was my fault for not adding the needed changes to the da830
config also when I submitted that patch.
What about removing "#define CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT" as in commit
ab86f72c354f9b2572340f72b74ca0a258c451bd ?
Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner
---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support
2010-09-22 13:43 ` Ben Gardiner
@ 2010-09-22 14:15 ` Nick Thompson
2010-09-22 15:07 ` Ben Gardiner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Thompson @ 2010-09-22 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 22/09/10 14:43, Ben Gardiner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
>> Fixes build breakage in da830evm after commit
>> 97003756249bd790910417eb66f0039bbf06a02c "da8xx: fixup ARM
>> relocation support"
>>
>> The da8xx fixup commit changed da830/da850 common code to make
>> relocation work in da850, but didn't add the required defines
>> to da830evm_config.h resulting in build failure in the common code.
>>
>> This patch adds those defines for da830, but makes no sense without
>> also referring to the commit mentioned above.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com>
>
> Sorry that was my fault for not adding the needed changes to the da830
> config also when I submitted that patch.
It's not a problem - at least you laid the ground work for a fix that
had to be done anyway. I only mentioned it to put the patch in
context.
> What about removing "#define CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT" as in commit
> ab86f72c354f9b2572340f72b74ca0a258c451bd ?
Hmmm. It wouldn't hurt I guess. The UBL copies the code to the correct
address though doesn't it? The copy is not executed and so the code is
redundant - or did I miss something?
Nick.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support
2010-09-22 14:15 ` Nick Thompson
@ 2010-09-22 15:07 ` Ben Gardiner
2010-09-22 15:15 ` Nick Thompson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Gardiner @ 2010-09-22 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
> On 22/09/10 14:43, Ben Gardiner wrote:
>> What about removing "#define CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT" as in commit
>> ab86f72c354f9b2572340f72b74ca0a258c451bd ?
>
> Hmmm. It wouldn't hurt I guess. The UBL copies the code to the correct
> address though doesn't it? The copy is not executed and so the code is
> redundant - or did I miss something?
Yeah, good point. UBL does copy the code to the correct address -- but
I also remember that I needed to remove that define in my testing of
Heiko's patches on the da850.
I'll get around to testing -next again soon and I'll try with
CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT defined.
Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner
---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support
2010-09-22 15:07 ` Ben Gardiner
@ 2010-09-22 15:15 ` Nick Thompson
2010-09-22 15:21 ` Ben Gardiner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Thompson @ 2010-09-22 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 22/09/10 16:07, Ben Gardiner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
>> On 22/09/10 14:43, Ben Gardiner wrote:
>>> What about removing "#define CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT" as in commit
>>> ab86f72c354f9b2572340f72b74ca0a258c451bd ?
>>
>> Hmmm. It wouldn't hurt I guess. The UBL copies the code to the correct
>> address though doesn't it? The copy is not executed and so the code is
>> redundant - or did I miss something?
>
> Yeah, good point. UBL does copy the code to the correct address -- but
> I also remember that I needed to remove that define in my testing of
> Heiko's patches on the da850.
>
> I'll get around to testing -next again soon and I'll try with
> CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT defined.
No, don't do that. I just did some testing myself. The relocation address
is calculated at run time and includes the size of u-boot itself. I got
away with it once in my debugger (I was trying to dodge the extra copy),
but it broke once I added more code.
You would have to change the UBL on more or less every build of u-boot
to skip the copy, which is clearly impractical.
I have removed CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT as you suggested and now
everything takes care of itself. I've already sent a v2 patch.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Nick.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support
2010-09-22 15:15 ` Nick Thompson
@ 2010-09-22 15:21 ` Ben Gardiner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Gardiner @ 2010-09-22 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
> On 22/09/10 16:07, Ben Gardiner wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com> wrote:
>>> On 22/09/10 14:43, Ben Gardiner wrote:
>>>> What about removing "#define CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT" as in commit
>>>> ab86f72c354f9b2572340f72b74ca0a258c451bd ?
>>>
>>> Hmmm. It wouldn't hurt I guess. The UBL copies the code to the correct
>>> address though doesn't it? The copy is not executed and so the code is
>>> redundant - or did I miss something?
>>
>> Yeah, good point. UBL does copy the code to the correct address -- but
>> I also remember that I needed to remove that define in my testing of
>> Heiko's patches on the da850.
>>
>> I'll get around to testing -next again soon and I'll try with
>> CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT defined.
>
> No, don't do that. I just did some testing myself. The relocation address
> is calculated at run time and includes the size of u-boot itself. I got
> away with it once in my debugger (I was trying to dodge the extra copy),
> but it broke once I added more code.
Roger. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
--
Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner
---
Nanometrics Inc.
http://www.nanometrics.ca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-22 15:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-09-22 13:16 [U-Boot] [PATCH] [NEXT] da830: fixup ARM relocation support Nick Thompson
2010-09-22 13:43 ` Ben Gardiner
2010-09-22 14:15 ` Nick Thompson
2010-09-22 15:07 ` Ben Gardiner
2010-09-22 15:15 ` Nick Thompson
2010-09-22 15:21 ` Ben Gardiner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox