Hello Simon,
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:12:13 -0700, Simon Glass
wrote:
> > IMO, keeping it simple does not play well with making DM and malloc
> > available pre-SDRAM init :) --- but don't miscontrue my meaning: I'm
> > fine with DM and malloc pre-SDRAM on platforms which have enough IRAM /
> > SRA
Hi Albert,
On 12 November 2015 at 09:13, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:59:54 -0700, Simon Glass
> wrote:
>> Hi Albert,
>>
>> On 11 November 2015 at 23:57, Albert ARIBAUD
>> wrote:
>> > Hello Simon,
>> >
>> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass
>>
Hello Simon,
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:59:54 -0700, Simon Glass
wrote:
> Hi Albert,
>
> On 11 November 2015 at 23:57, Albert ARIBAUD
> wrote:
> > Hello Simon,
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Fabio,
> >>
> >> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam
Hi Albert,
On 11 November 2015 at 23:57, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass
> wrote:
>> Hi Fabio,
>>
>> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass
>> > wrote:
Hi Albert,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
> I could whip up an RFC patch (with ARM support, to be extended to other
> platforms as my recent experience showed I'm not that good at NIOS2 for
> instance) if people are interested.
I would be glad to test such patch, thanks.
Hello Simon,
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass
wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam
> wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we
> >> p
Hi Fabio,
On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>
>> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we plan
>> to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set up a
>> little later (in spl_
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we plan
> to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set up a
> little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both - either we
> use simple malloc() o
Hi Fabio,
On 11 November 2015 at 14:00, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Simon and Albert,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in
>>> board_init_
Hi Simon and Albert,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>
>> Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in
>> board_init_f_mem():
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
>>(!defined(CONFI
Hi Albert,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN)
>> + sub sp, sp, #CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
>> + str sp, [r9, #GD_MALLOC_BASE]
>> +#endif
>
> NAK, as this only papers over the actual issue. Board_init_f_mem should
> have se
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in board_init_f_mem():
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
>(!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
Hello Fabio,
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:23:17 -0200, Fabio Estevam
wrote:
> From: Fabio Estevam
>
> Commit 5ba534d247d418 ("arm: Switch 32-bit ARM to using generic global_data
> setup") causes malloc() to fail in SPL.
>
> The reason is that the GD_MALLOC_BASE is not passed anymore.
This is the ex
Hi Fabio,
On 11 November 2015 at 13:23, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> From: Fabio Estevam
>
> Commit 5ba534d247d418 ("arm: Switch 32-bit ARM to using generic global_data
> setup") causes malloc() to fail in SPL.
>
> The reason is that the GD_MALLOC_BASE is not passed anymore.
>
> Restore the code that
From: Fabio Estevam
Commit 5ba534d247d418 ("arm: Switch 32-bit ARM to using generic global_data
setup") causes malloc() to fail in SPL.
The reason is that the GD_MALLOC_BASE is not passed anymore.
Restore the code that passes malloc base so that we can have
malloc working in SPL code again.
Si
15 matches
Mail list logo