[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] m68k: add malloc memory for early malloc

[Angelo Dureghello <angelo@sysam.it>]

Hi Simon,

On 15/04/2016 17:23, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Angelo,
>
> On 15 April 2016 at 08:42, Angelo Dureghello <angelo@sysam.it> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>
>> On 15/04/2016 16:14, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Angelo,
>>>
>>> On 27 December 2015 at 21:22, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20 December 2015 at 08:54, Angelo Dureghello <angelo@sysam.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To use serial uclass and DM, CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F must be used.
>>>>> So CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_GLOBAL_DATA has been undefined and
>>>>> call to board_init_f_mem() is added for all cpu's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <angelo@sysam.it>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>>>
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5227x/start.S   | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf523x/start.S    | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.S    | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf530x/cpu_init.c | 2 +-
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf530x/start.S    | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf532x/start.S    | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5445x/start.S   | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/cpu/mcf547x_8x/start.S | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    arch/m68k/include/asm/config.h   | 2 --
>>>>>    9 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this breaks a lot of boards so I cannot apply it:
>>>
>>> 22: m68k: add malloc memory for early malloc
>>>         m68k:  +   M5475FFE M5475GFE M5485AFE M5475BFE M52277EVB
>>> M5485FFE M54451EVB M54418TWR_nand_rmii M54418TWR_serial_mii M5475EFE
>>> M5485CFE M54451EVB_stmicro M5485BFE M5485HFE M54418TWR_serial_rmii
>>> M5475DFE M52277EVB_stmicro M5475AFE M5485GFE M54418TWR_nand_mii
>>> eb_cpu5282_internal amcore M53017EVB M54418TWR_nand_rmii_lowfreq
>>> M54418TWR M5475CFE M5485EFE M5485DFE eb_cpu5282
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf547x_8x/start.o: In function `_start':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf547x_8x/start.S:153: undefined reference to
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf547x_8x/start.S:153:(.text+0x470):
>>> relocation truncated to fit: R_68K_PC16 against undefined symbol
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +make[1]: *** [u-boot] Error 1
>>> +make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5227x/start.o: In function `_start':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5227x/start.S:384: undefined reference to
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5445x/start.o: In function `_start':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5445x/start.S:669: undefined reference to
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5445x/start.S:669:(.text+0x41c): relocation
>>> truncated to fit: R_68K_PC16 against undefined symbol
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf5227x/start.S:384:(.text+0x44a): relocation
>>> truncated to fit: R_68K_PC16 against undefined symbol
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.o: In function `_after_flashbar_copy':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.S:203: undefined reference to
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.S:203:(.text+0x494): relocation
>>> truncated to fit: R_68K_PC16 against undefined symbol
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf530x/start.o: In function `_start':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf530x/start.S:142: undefined reference to
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf530x/start.S:142:(.text+0x45e): relocation
>>> truncated to fit: R_68K_PC16 against undefined symbol
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf532x/start.o: In function `_start':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf532x/start.S:160: undefined reference to
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>> +arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.o: In function `_start':
>>> +build/../arch/m68k/cpu/mcf52x2/start.S:203:(.text+0x456): relocation
>>> truncated to fit: R_68K_PC16 against undefined symbol
>>> `board_init_f_mem'
>>>
>>
>> Issue was not there at that submit time, now it seems due to growing of
>> u-boot size.
>>
>> The "truncated to fit" issue is fixed with this patch.
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/609150/
>>
>> So if you apply the above, and then this current, all should work.
>
> There is mention of a v2 patch there - is it coming?
>

No, v2 was an attempt to fix the issue trough the linker script, but was 
too complex.
So this is the definitive patch.

> Regards,
> Simon
>

Regards,
Angelo