From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:55:26 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v7 15/19] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic
 SPL
In-Reply-To: <1520555937.67335.1361563759793.JavaMail.root@advansee.com>
References: <1360961665-10693-1-git-send-email-benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
	<1360961665-10693-15-git-send-email-benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
	<CAOMZO5ANv7VNL5oGw=k3-tKZMWiNU1NRZZ1PBvqnrQcp0LKc2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOMZO5C45ta8PSrLiaAFJ_c9nDPgFBjzOynvzb1HL6K70yybjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1520555937.67335.1361563759793.JavaMail.root@advansee.com>
Message-ID: <5127DB3E.9040403@boundarydevices.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 2/22/2013 1:09 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 8:30:36 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just tested your patch series on a mx31pdk, but unfortunately it does
>>> not fix mx31pdk boot.
>>>
>>> I will start looking at it, but any suggestion is welcome.
>> Ok, just changed to a proper toolchain and the result is a bit better now:
>>
>> U-Boot 2013.01 (Feb 22 2013 - 16:25:48)
>>
>> CPU:   Freescale i.MX31 rev 2.0 at 532 MHz.
>> Reset cause: POR
>> Board: MX31PDK
>> DRAM:  128 MiB
>>
>> (hangs here).
> It looks very much like the issue that Marek had on i.MX53 (which self-resolved
> for an unknown reason).
>
> Try to enable the debug trace to see if anything else is printed after
> display_dram_config(). I would especially be interested in:
>          debug("relocation Offset is: %08lx\n", gd->reloc_off);
>          debug("monitor flash len: %08lX\n", monitor_flash_len);
>
> We should also check if CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE and CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE don't
> overlap with something depending on code size. That's especially true for
> CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE.
>
> After that, JTAG if no clue left... ;(
>
> Best regards,
> Beno?t
>
It does look familiar, can you try changing imximage.c


*header_size_ptr = ROUND(sbuf->st_size + imxhdr->flash_offset, 512);

to

*header_size_ptr = ROUND(sbuf->st_size + imxhdr->flash_offset, 4096);

(or whatever your nand sector size is)
and see if it makes a difference?