From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: seedshope Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:45:36 +0800 Subject: [U-Boot] [v3 patch 2/4] SMDK6400: Fix some label undefined in build error In-Reply-To: <4D2F3F67.5030603@free.fr> References: <1294925784-5042-1-git-send-email-bocui107@gmail.com> <1294925784-5042-3-git-send-email-bocui107@gmail.com> <4D2F3F67.5030603@free.fr> Message-ID: <4D306FA0.50407@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 01/14/2011 02:07 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Le 13/01/2011 14:36, seedshope a ?crit : >> Modify Makefile for cpu_init.c and Start.s use some label,this defined >> u-boot.lds of arch/arm/cpu/arm1176. But SMDK6400 use the link script >> board/samsung/smdk6400/u-boot-nand.lds. So add some label form >> u-boot.lds >> to u-boot-nand.lds >> >> Signed-off-by: seedshope >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/Makefile >> b/arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/Makefile >> index 0785b19..f4b9574 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/Makefile >> @@ -30,12 +30,15 @@ LIB = $(obj)lib$(SOC).o >> >> SOBJS = reset.o >> >> -COBJS-$(CONFIG_S3C6400) += cpu_init.o speed.o >> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_S3C6400) += speed.o >> COBJS-y += timer.o >> >> +CPUINIT = cpu_init.o >> + >> OBJS := $(addprefix $(obj),$(SOBJS) $(COBJS-y)) >> +CPUINIT := $(addprefix $(obj),$(CPUINIT)) >> >> -all: $(obj).depend $(START) $(LIB) >> +all: $(obj).depend $(START) $(LIB) $(CPUINIT) >> >> $(LIB): $(OBJS) >> $(call cmd_link_o_target, $(OBJS)) > > Not sure I get what's the problem and how exactly this changes solves > it. Can you detail this particular issue? The issue is mem_ctrl_asm_init redefine in arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/cpu_init.s. At first, the link script file include cpu_init.s in board/samsung/smd6400/u-boot-nand.s, If I separate the cpu_init.o from COBJS-$(CONFIG_S3C6400), I guess cmd_link_o_target will deal with cpu_init.o. So the link script will double link the cpu_init file. I have two method to solve it. first: see the patch second: Modify the link script But I feel, the first method is safe. I asked a question. I will RR on next, The patch1 and patch3 have already ok, Do I only send patch2 and patch4? > > Amicalement,