From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: York Sun Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:44:48 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] powerpc/mpc85xx: Increase image size In-Reply-To: <1381956090.7979.743.camel@snotra.buserror.net> References: <52584386.7050104@freescale.com> <1381516790.7979.524.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <525849F0.60002@freescale.com> <525ECFD4.4080704@freescale.com> <1381952276.7979.737.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <525EF57A.2090105@freescale.com> <1381955392.7979.740.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <525EF7C1.9040908@freescale.com> <1381955630.7979.741.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <525EF95D.7010807@freescale.com> <1381956090.7979.743.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Message-ID: <525EFAC0.8000200@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/16/2013 01:41 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 13:38 -0700, York Sun wrote: >> On 10/16/2013 01:33 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 13:32 -0700, York Sun wrote: >>>> On 10/16/2013 01:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 13:22 -0700, York Sun wrote: >>>>>> On 10/16/2013 12:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:41 -0700, York Sun wrote: >>>>>>>> Are SPL and TPL boot methods immune from the size issue here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sort of. We still need to fit inside existing partition tables. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> PBL boot will be broken if the image size is bigger than 512KB, right? >>>>> >>>>> It has to be even smaller than that, to make room for early data. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So if we go with 768KB, do we have to convert all PBL boot to SPL boot? >>> >>> Only the targets that need the extra space. >>> >> >> We have T4, B4 and corenet_ds using PBL boot. They most likely will >> exceed the 512KB soon, if not yet. It maybe easier to change all of them >> togther, than one by one. > > There's no reason to change them all at once. It doesn't make anything > easier; it just means you have to do a bunch of testing all at once, and > force a change in procedure for users on boards where it otherwise would > not have been required. You are right here. > > Plus, the 512K limit is for e500v2-based chips. Newer chips have CPC > for SRAM which is larger than 512K. > Hmm? T4240 has 512KB CPC. York