From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aneesh V Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:27:27 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] BSS footprint of FAT very high - SPL issues In-Reply-To: <4D54D985.7010609@free.fr> References: <4D4798E2.3050500@ti.com> <20110201075521.60484B187@gemini.denx.de> <4D47C1C9.1020002@ti.com> <20110201100312.241C1B187@gemini.denx.de> <4D495966.4010009@ti.com> <4D495E02.4080509@free.fr> <4D4963D6.3020505@ti.com> <4D4974DC.9010103@free.fr> <4D4A85C2.7070807@ti.com> <4D4CF506.5090902@free.fr> <4D54D704.3060508@ti.com> <4D54D985.7010609@free.fr> Message-ID: <4D54DDD7.7080507@ti.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 Albert, On Friday 11 February 2011 12:09 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Aneesh, > > Le 11/02/2011 07:28, Aneesh V a ?crit : >> Hello Wolfgang, Albert, >> >> On Saturday 05 February 2011 12:28 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>> Hi Aneesh, >>> >>> Le 03/02/2011 11:38, Aneesh V a ?crit : >>> >>>> On second thoughts I would like to keep the entire bss in SDRAM. With >>>> MMC and FAT support, the SPL is already nearing the IRAM budget in >>>> OMAP3. It helps to save some space by moving out bss to SDRAM. >>>> >>>> If needed, I can fix up the start.S by defining something like >>>> _end_of_data. But is that really needed. I do not see any SPL that >>>> needs relocation and SDRAM bss at the same time. >>> >>> "Patches Welcome" :) -- with added thanks for patching all start.S / >>> u-boot.lds in the ARM arch consistently. >> >> I see __u_boot_cmd_end as the end of the image to be relocated in all >> the scripts. Shall I use this label for this purpose. This will work >> for now and save me from touching all those linker scripts. However, >> there is a small possibility of this leading to the same problem as >> with __bss_start in future. I don't think that should be a big concern. >> Do you agree? > > As you point out, using __u_boot_cmd would cause as much of a concern as > the current use of __bss_start, so I see no improvement there. > > Please define a label in the linker file. If you haven't got time to > port the change to other linkers, don't ; the BSS issue is, for now, > specific to your case. I thought it rather unlikely that the position of __u_boot_cmd will change in future. But I agree with you. Better do it cleanly once and for all. Changing the linker scripts for all cpus should not be a big deal. But I will not be able to test any of them except armv7/omap4 One patch will do, right? Also, any thoughts on the name for the new label. _end_of_relocated_image is all I can think of? > >> Best regards, >> Aneesh > > Amicalement,