[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: atmel: at91sam9m10g45ek: enable SPL

["Andreas Bießmann" <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>]

Hi Bo,

On 01/16/2015 10:30 AM, Bo Shen wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 05:10 PM, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
>> On 01/16/2015 03:53 AM, Bo Shen wrote:

>>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/at91/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/at91/Makefile
>>> @@ -25,5 +25,9 @@ obj-y    += reset.o
>>>   obj-y    += timer.o
>>>
>>>   ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
>>> +ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>>> +obj-y    += spl_lowlevel_init.o
>>> +else
>>>   obj-y    += lowlevel_init.o
>>>   endif
>>> +endif
>>
>> I'm fine with having two variants of lowlevel_init for a time, but we
>> should consolidate this and use C-style initialisation of SDRAM and
>> stuff for the other armv5 at91 devices in future. AFAIK the
>> a/a/c/arm926ejs/at91/lowlevel_init.S is mainly used for NOR Flash boots,
>> so using the SPL code (but not necessarily the two binary mechanism) for
>> the NOR Flash boots in future is appreciated.
> 
> OK, when all the arm9 at91 related board has SPL support, then I will do
> this.

Can we achieve this in this MW?

>>> +ENTRY(lowlevel_init)
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Setup a temporary stack
>>> +     */
>>> +    ldr    sp, =CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR
>>> +    bic    sp, sp, #7 /* 8-byte alignment for ABI compliance */
>>> +
>>> +    ldr    r9, =gdata
>>
>> I remember some patches removing the SPL gdata stuff, is that true?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Yes, just search for it, the following patch do this.
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/423789/ (arm: Reduce the scope of
> lowlevel_init())

I think we should use the function provided there. What do you think?

Best regards

Andreas Bie?mann