* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned
2012-07-23 20:58 [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-07-23 20:58 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-14 20:55 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-14 20:55 ` [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-07-23 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
The code first aligns the SP to 16 then subtract 8, making it
8 bytes aligned. Furthermore the initial stack frame not
quite correct either.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
---
v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
arch/powerpc/lib/board.c | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git arch/powerpc/lib/board.c arch/powerpc/lib/board.c
index d5b75e5..a46942c 100644
--- arch/powerpc/lib/board.c
+++ arch/powerpc/lib/board.c
@@ -521,9 +521,8 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
addr_sp -= 16;
addr_sp &= ~0xF;
s = (ulong *) addr_sp;
- *s-- = 0;
- *s-- = 0;
- addr_sp = (ulong) s;
+ *s = 0; /* Terminate back chain */
+ *++s = 0; /* NULL return address */
debug("Stack Pointer at: %08lx\n", addr_sp);
/*
--
1.7.3.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned
2012-07-23 20:58 ` [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-08-14 20:55 ` Joakim Tjernlund
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-08-14 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Ping?
>
> The code first aligns the SP to 16 then subtract 8, making it
> 8 bytes aligned. Furthermore the initial stack frame not
> quite correct either.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> ---
>
> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
>
> arch/powerpc/lib/board.c | 5 ++---
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git arch/powerpc/lib/board.c arch/powerpc/lib/board.c
> index d5b75e5..a46942c 100644
> --- arch/powerpc/lib/board.c
> +++ arch/powerpc/lib/board.c
> @@ -521,9 +521,8 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
> addr_sp -= 16;
> addr_sp &= ~0xF;
> s = (ulong *) addr_sp;
> - *s-- = 0;
> - *s-- = 0;
> - addr_sp = (ulong) s;
> + *s = 0; /* Terminate back chain */
> + *++s = 0; /* NULL return address */
> debug("Stack Pointer at: %08lx\n", addr_sp);
>
> /*
> --
> 1.7.3.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-07-23 20:58 [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
2012-07-23 20:58 ` [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-08-14 20:55 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-14 21:01 ` Scott Wood
2012-08-14 21:28 ` Kumar Gala
2012-08-22 21:08 ` Andy Fleming
3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-08-14 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Ping?
>
> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> ---
>
> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
> index 8d66cf1..4973682 100644
> --- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
> +++ arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
> @@ -848,18 +848,12 @@ version_string:
> .globl _start_cont
> _start_cont:
> /* Setup the stack in initial RAM,could be L2-as-SRAM or L1 dcache*/
> - lis r1,CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR at h
> - ori r1,r1,CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_OFFSET at l
> -
> + lis r3,(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR)@h
> + ori r3,r3,((CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_OFFSET-16)&~0xf)@l /* Align to 16 */
> li r0,0
> - stwu r0,-4(r1)
> - stwu r0,-4(r1) /* Terminate call chain */
> -
> - stwu r1,-8(r1) /* Save back chain and move SP */
> - lis r0,RESET_VECTOR at h /* Address of reset vector */
> - ori r0,r0,RESET_VECTOR at l
> - stwu r1,-8(r1) /* Save back chain and move SP */
> - stw r0,+12(r1) /* Save return addr (underflow vect) */
> + stw r0,0(r3) /* Terminate Back Chain */
> + stw r0,+4(r3) /* NULL return address. */
> + mr r1,r3 /* Transfer to SP(r1) */
>
> GET_GOT
> bl cpu_init_early_f
> --
> 1.7.3.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-14 20:55 ` [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-08-14 21:01 ` Scott Wood
2012-08-15 7:05 ` Joakim Tjernlund
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2012-08-14 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 08/14/2012 03:55 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Ping?
>
>>
>> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
>> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
>> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
>> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
>> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
>> ---
>>
>> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Andy Fleming is the 85xx custodian, but you didn't CC him.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-14 21:01 ` Scott Wood
@ 2012-08-15 7:05 ` Joakim Tjernlund
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-08-15 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote on 2012/08/14 23:01:47:
>
> On 08/14/2012 03:55 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ping?
> >
> >>
> >> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> >> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> >> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> >> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> >> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> >> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> >> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Andy Fleming is the 85xx custodian, but you didn't CC him.
Oh, didn't notice that Andy was the custodian, there isn't
an entry in MAINTAINERS.
Andy, you think you can pick up
[PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
Jocke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-07-23 20:58 [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
2012-07-23 20:58 ` [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-14 20:55 ` [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-08-14 21:28 ` Kumar Gala
2012-08-15 7:10 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-22 21:08 ` Andy Fleming
3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2012-08-14 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> ---
>
> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-14 21:28 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2012-08-15 7:10 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-15 17:13 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-08-15 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 2012/08/14 23:28:45:
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> > Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> > which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> > the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> > Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> > ---
> >
> > v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Acked-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
Thanks Kumar
Will you pick up?
[PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned
It is not 85xx specific but for all PowerPC
Jocke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-15 7:10 ` Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-08-15 17:13 ` Scott Wood
2012-08-16 23:40 ` Andy Fleming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2012-08-15 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 08/15/2012 02:10 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 2012/08/14 23:28:45:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>
>>> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
>>> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
>>> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
>>> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
>>> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
>>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> Acked-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
>
> Thanks Kumar
>
> Will you pick up?
> [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned
>
> It is not 85xx specific but for all PowerPC
I don't think Kumar has a U-Boot tree to pull it into. There's no
general PPC custodian. Probably both patches should go via Andy.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-15 17:13 ` Scott Wood
@ 2012-08-16 23:40 ` Andy Fleming
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andy Fleming @ 2012-08-16 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
I will pull them. Possibly tomorrow. I'm currently buried in other work, but Friday is supposed to be my U-Boot Custodian day. :)
Andy
On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/15/2012 02:10 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 2012/08/14 23:28:45:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>>
>>>> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
>>>> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
>>>> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
>>>> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
>>>> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
>>>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
>>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
>>
>> Thanks Kumar
>>
>> Will you pick up?
>> [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: Stack Pointer not properly aligned
>>
>> It is not 85xx specific but for all PowerPC
>
> I don't think Kumar has a U-Boot tree to pull it into. There's no
> general PPC custodian. Probably both patches should go via Andy.
>
> -Scott
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-07-23 20:58 [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong Joakim Tjernlund
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-08-14 21:28 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2012-08-22 21:08 ` Andy Fleming
2012-08-23 7:21 ` Joakim Tjernlund
3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andy Fleming @ 2012-08-22 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
<Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> ---
>
> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
Why are your patches different from everyone else's? When I try to
apply this, I get errors because it can't find
"powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx...". git am leaves off the first directory,
because the usual practice is to send patches with these filenames:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
I fixed it by hand, but let's not make that a habit. Is there some
setting that I don't have that would make it so I could ignore this?
> index 8d66cf1..4973682 100644
> --- arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
> +++ arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
> @@ -848,18 +848,12 @@ version_string:
> .globl _start_cont
> _start_cont:
> /* Setup the stack in initial RAM,could be L2-as-SRAM or L1 dcache*/
> - lis r1,CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR at h
> - ori r1,r1,CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_OFFSET at l
> -
> + lis r3,(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR)@h
> + ori r3,r3,((CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_OFFSET-16)&~0xf)@l /* Align to 16 */
> li r0,0
> - stwu r0,-4(r1)
> - stwu r0,-4(r1) /* Terminate call chain */
> -
> - stwu r1,-8(r1) /* Save back chain and move SP */
> - lis r0,RESET_VECTOR at h /* Address of reset vector */
> - ori r0,r0,RESET_VECTOR at l
> - stwu r1,-8(r1) /* Save back chain and move SP */
> - stw r0,+12(r1) /* Save return addr (underflow vect) */
> + stw r0,0(r3) /* Terminate Back Chain */
> + stw r0,+4(r3) /* NULL return address. */
> + mr r1,r3 /* Transfer to SP(r1) */
>
> GET_GOT
> bl cpu_init_early_f
> --
> 1.7.3.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-22 21:08 ` Andy Fleming
@ 2012-08-23 7:21 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2012-08-23 16:53 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-08-23 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Andy Fleming <afleming@gmail.com> wrote on 2012/08/22 23:08:45:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> > PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> > Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> > which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> > the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> > Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> > ---
> >
> > v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
>
>
> Why are your patches different from everyone else's? When I try to
> apply this, I get errors because it can't find
> "powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx...". git am leaves off the first directory,
> because the usual practice is to send patches with these filenames:
Ahh, recently I set (in ny git config):
[diff]
noprefix = true
because I got tired off stripping off that prefix each time I cut and
paste file names into emacs and similar.
Seems like git really likes to see that prefix when applying patches.
Don't know if git could learn not to complain about missing prefix?
Jocke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-23 7:21 ` Joakim Tjernlund
@ 2012-08-23 16:53 ` Scott Wood
2012-08-23 18:51 ` Joakim Tjernlund
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2012-08-23 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 08/23/2012 02:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Andy Fleming <afleming@gmail.com> wrote on 2012/08/22 23:08:45:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
>>> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
>>> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
>>> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
>>> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
>>> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
>>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
>>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
>>
>>
>> Why are your patches different from everyone else's? When I try to
>> apply this, I get errors because it can't find
>> "powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx...". git am leaves off the first directory,
>> because the usual practice is to send patches with these filenames:
>
> Ahh, recently I set (in ny git config):
> [diff]
> noprefix = true
> because I got tired off stripping off that prefix each time I cut and
> paste file names into emacs and similar.
>
> Seems like git really likes to see that prefix when applying patches.
> Don't know if git could learn not to complain about missing prefix?
It's not just git, but also direct use of the patch command when a patch
fails to apply cleanly. A user shouldn't have to inspect a patch to
determine whether to use -p0 or -p1. -p1 is standard.
How often do you copy and paste filenames out of your own patches?
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/2] mpc85xx: Initial SP alignment is wrong.
2012-08-23 16:53 ` Scott Wood
@ 2012-08-23 18:51 ` Joakim Tjernlund
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joakim Tjernlund @ 2012-08-23 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote on 2012/08/23 18:53:14:
>
> On 08/23/2012 02:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Andy Fleming <afleming@gmail.com> wrote on 2012/08/22 23:08:45:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> >> <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> >>> PowerPC mandates SP to be 16 bytes aligned.
> >>> Furthermore, a stack frame is added, pointing to the reset vector
> >>> which may in the way when gdb is walking the stack because
> >>> the reset vector may not accessible depending on emulator settings.
> >>> Also use a temp register so gdb doesn't pick up intermediate values.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> v2 - Address Scott Wood's comments
> >>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 16 +++++-----------
> >>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S
> >>
> >>
> >> Why are your patches different from everyone else's? When I try to
> >> apply this, I get errors because it can't find
> >> "powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx...". git am leaves off the first directory,
> >> because the usual practice is to send patches with these filenames:
> >
> > Ahh, recently I set (in ny git config):
> > [diff]
> > noprefix = true
> > because I got tired off stripping off that prefix each time I cut and
> > paste file names into emacs and similar.
> >
> > Seems like git really likes to see that prefix when applying patches.
> > Don't know if git could learn not to complain about missing prefix?
>
> It's not just git, but also direct use of the patch command when a patch
> fails to apply cleanly. A user shouldn't have to inspect a patch to
> determine whether to use -p0 or -p1. -p1 is standard.
Right
>
> How often do you copy and paste filenames out of your own patches?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread