[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] ARM: tegra: increase CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE

Simon Glass
2012-10-18T00:05:21Z

Hi Stephen.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 04:09 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, den 16.10.2012, 15:50 -0600 schrieb Stephen Warren:
>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> The SPL has grown. Increase CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE so SPL's BSS does not
>>> overlap the main U-Boot.
>>
>> Is there any specific reason why the SPL is now bigger than before? Or
>> is this just because of the general U-Boot rework (like serial multi
>> anywhere)? And by how much has it grown? This is really more out of
>> curiosity rather than any real objection.
>
> Looking at this more, I built commit cca6076 "tegra20: Remove armv4t
> build flags" which was the last patch in the series that enabled SPL on
> Tegra, and it overflows even there:
>
> Configuring for ventana board...
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 226085 4384 274228 504697 7b379 ./u-boot
> 13857 153 4516 18526 485e ./spl/u-boot-spl
>
> u-boot/master currently has:
>
> Configuring for ventana board...
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 233579 4432 274368 512379 7d17b ./u-boot
> 14382 201 4520 19103 4a9f ./spl/u-boot-spl
>
> So, there is slight growth, but mainly I think we've just been getting
> lucky.
>
> Also, the overflow might possibly only have been exposed by the recent
> serial rework; when I found the problem the serial rework caused on
> Tegra, Allen mentioned that the missing BSS clearing hadn't been a
> problem before since no global variables were used, but the serial
> rework caused some to be.

To ask the opposite question, is it worth increasing by a whole 16KB
so that the base address of U-Boot is a more aligned number?

Regards,
Simon