[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 3/4] arm: do not compile relocate_code() for SPL builds

["Benoît Thébaudeau" <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>]

Hi Albert,

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:21:02 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Beno?t,
> 
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:21:51 +0200 (CEST), Beno?t Th?baudeau
> <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Albert,
> > 
> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:50:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - dropped all relocate_code instances from SPL builds
> > > 
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/start.S   |   11 +++--------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/start.S   |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/start.S   |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/start.S   |   12 +++++-------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm925t/start.S   |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/start.S |   11 +++--------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm946es/start.S  |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/arm_intcm/start.S |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S     |    6 ++----
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/ixp/start.S       |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/pxa/start.S       |    8 ++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/s3c44b0/start.S   |   11 +++++------
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/start.S    |   11 +++++------
> > >  13 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/start.S b/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/start.S
> > > index ccea2d5..1eec2e0 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/start.S
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/start.S
> > > @@ -104,10 +104,6 @@ _TEXT_BASE:
> > >  _bss_start_ofs:
> > >  	.word __bss_start - _start
> > >  
> > > -.globl _image_copy_end_ofs
> > > -_image_copy_end_ofs:
> > > -	.word __image_copy_end - _start
> > > -
> > 
> > This change should be mentioned in the commit message, or moved to a
> > separate
> > patch.
> 
> This is not a separate change; __image_copy_end_ofs is one of the offset
> words used by relocate_code, only for some reason it was not initially
> placed with the others at the end of the routine; so instead of putting
> a second pair of conditionals around it, I move it where it should have
> been in the first place, which also places it within the already added
> pair of conditionals.

OK.

Best regards,
Beno?t