[U-Boot] [PATCH v9 18/30] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL

Benoît Thébaudeau
2013-04-01T00:30:00Z

Hi Albert,

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 7:30:24 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Beno?t,
>
> I have managed to rebase your patch series and have tested it over the
> ARM targets. This particular patch was the only one to cause an issue,
> and an amusing one at that:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:59:24 +0100, Beno?t Th?baudeau
> <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com> wrote:
>
> > This also fixes support for mx31pdk and tx25, which had been broken by
> > commit
> > e05e5de7fae5bec79617e113916dac6631251156.
>
> Both boards actually build fine with e05e5de7fae (and have built
> fine since, at least in all of the routine ARM-wide builds I do as the
> ARM custodian and where I accept zero build failures or warnings).

Yes, for me too. This was not a build issue, but a runtime one.

> And both boards actually do not build at all with this patch :) and die
> with the same error:
>
> .../spl/u-boot-spl.lds:45: non constant or forward reference address
> expression for section .bss
>
> In both case I have double-checked this using Ubuntu's gcc version
> 4.7.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-1ubuntu1) or ELDK 5.3's gcc version 4.7.2
> (GCC).

OK. That worked fine for me and Fabio at the time I issued the v9, so it can be
the rebase, or something that changed in mainline in the meantime, or the
toolchain. According to your tests, it's very unlikely that the toolchain is
involved.

I've looked at the Git history, and the guilty commit is 3ebd1cb. But thanks to
commit 65cdd64, this build issue should be easily solved by replacing:
+#define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT "arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-boot.lds"
with:
+#define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT "arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds"
in both mx31pdk.h and tx25.h.

Can you please retest with this change?

This line could even be dropped from tx25.h since there is no arm926ejs SPL
linker script obstructing the default assignment, contrary to arm1136 for
mx31pdk, but that would be risky if such a linker script is added later.

Is it still OK for the release if I send v10 on April 8 as I said (so just with
the rebase including the change above if you confirm that everything is OK like
that)?

Best regards,
Beno?t