From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:11:01 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 1/2] arm926ejs: fix linker file for newer ld support In-Reply-To: <4CDA9CF2.1030202@schmid-telecom.ch> References: <1288909332-26220-1-git-send-email-albert.aribaud@free.fr> <4CD991EA.6090004@schmid-telecom.ch> <4CD99755.7000103@free.fr> <4CDA9096.2080505@schmid-telecom.ch> <4CDA9489.6030108@free.fr> <4CDA9CF2.1030202@schmid-telecom.ch> Message-ID: <4CDBA515.3050106@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 10/11/2010 14:24, Daniel Hobi a ?crit : > On 10.11.2010 13:48, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Le 10/11/2010 13:31, Daniel Hobi a ?crit : >>>>> But shouldn't this change be applied to all ARM linker scripts, ie >>>>> arch/arm/cpu/*/u-boot.lds? >>>> >>>> Yes, it should. :) >>> >>> Can you please provide such a patch? >> >> I could, but I tend to provide patches only for boards that I can test, >> which basically covers only arm926ejs, or that I can get tested; I'd >> prefer not to provide patches for HW that I cannot test, and thus I >> would prefer that patches for other cpus be handled by people who >> actually own boards with these cpus and can test their patching. After >> all, this very bugfix is due to ELF relocations having been tested with >> too poor a range of toolchains. > > I prefer a single patch to solve one problem in all places. And since > you probably have most experience with the new ARM relocation, that > patch should come from you. Figures. :) > The ARM architecture and board maintainers will test your patch during > the current release cycle. Alright. I'll prepare a V5 patch set with fixes to all ARM cpus. Wolfgang, is a single *patch* for all cpus ok or do you want a single *patchset* with one patch per cpu? Please tell me the single patch approach is ok. :) > Best regards, > Daniel Amicalement, -- Albert.