.4rf.com<https://www.4rf.com>
>
>
>
>
> [cid:Family_53c410b1-7227-4a5f-9acb-f09bd7617a39.png]
> <http://www.4rf.com/news/events>
>
> -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Rini
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 20
ux from the SPL
perhaps.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Rini
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 2020 8:40 am
> To: Reuben Dowle
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix data abort caused by mis-aligning fit data in
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 08:05:24PM +00
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 08:05:24PM +, Reuben Dowle wrote:
> Should I submit a new patch with the alignment set to 8 bytes? I would think
> a hard coded 8 bytes would not be the best solution, since not all
> architectures will need that much alignment. I suspect some would work with
> any a
am also interested to know where the 8 byte alignment requirement is
documented.
Reuben
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Rini
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 2020 2:27 am
> To: Reuben Dowle
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix data abort caused by mis-al
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 05:19:39AM +, Reuben Dowle wrote:
> Attempting to place device tree immediately after an image in memory can lead
> to mis-aligned data accesses if that image size is not divisible by the
> alignment requirements of the architecture.
>
> Data aborts caused by this were
Attempting to place device tree immediately after an image in memory can lead
to mis-aligned data accesses if that image size is not divisible by the
alignment requirements of the architecture.
Data aborts caused by this were observed on a custom Marvel A388 based system,
where the image was a ubo
6 matches
Mail list logo
