Hi Albert,
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Le 23/09/2011 18:04, Simon Glass a écrit :
>
>>> Are you looking for CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION? I think Anthony is
>>> only fixing couple of issues uncovered by the original 'skip
>>> relocation' patch but I do
Hi Simon,
Le 23/09/2011 18:04, Simon Glass a écrit :
>> Are you looking for CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION? I think Anthony is
>> only fixing couple of issues uncovered by the original 'skip
>> relocation' patch but I don't think CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION
>> itself is getting accepted.
>
> I
Le 30/09/2011 09:21, Simon Schwarz a écrit :
> On 09/29/2011 06:14 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> Simon, who has just finished his bachelor thesis did this test for me
>> (thanks to this way ...).
>> It seems using more register for ldmia/stmia does _not_ improve the copy
>> time that much
On 09/29/2011 06:14 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
[SNIP]
> Simon, who has just finished his bachelor thesis did this test for me (thanks
> to this way ...).
> It seems using more register for ldmia/stmia does _not_ improve the copy
> time that much. Simon measured 10.8 ms for r9-r10 and 10.65 ms for
Dear Albert,
Am 21.09.2011 um 14:31 schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
> Dear Albert,
>
> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
>> Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
>>> Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
>>> Dear Albert,
>>>
>>> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD
Hi Aneesh,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Aneesh V wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wednesday 21 September 2011 03:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Anthony,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, GROYER, Anthony
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
>>>
>>
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 16:23:56 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
> Le 21/09/2011 14:31, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
>> Dear Albert,
>>
>> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
>>> Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
Dear Albert,
>>
Le 21/09/2011 14:31, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
> Dear Albert,
>
> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
>> Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
>>> Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
>>> Dear Albert,
>>>
>>> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/20
Hi Simon,
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 03:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, GROYER, Anthony
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
>>
>> The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION
>>
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
> Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
>> Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
>> Dear Albert,
>>
>> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
>>> Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3) re
Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
> Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
> Dear Albert,
>
> Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
>> Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
>>
>
>
>
>> 3) replace use of r9-r10 with e.g. r10-r11 in the copy loop, to preserve
>> r9 during r
Le 21/09/2011 12:45, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
>
> In
> message
> you wrote:
>>
>> What is the difference between _start and _TEXT_BASE ? I do not see any
>> differences and the former relocation offset calculation was using
>> _TEXT_BASE.
>
> The former is the entry poi
Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
> Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
>
> 3) replace use of r9-r10 with e.g. r10-r11 in the copy loop, to preserve
> r9 during relocation.
If one is changing this place I would like to disc
Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
>> However, since start.S has a code path to handle the non-relocating
>> case, this path ought to be bug-free. But then, I want it to be
>> consistent: if the relocation offset is computed in r9, then testing
>> whether relocation is needed would be
Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
In message
you wrote:
>
> What is the difference between _start and _TEXT_BASE ? I do not see any
> differences and the former relocation offset calculation was using _TEXT_BASE.
The former is the entry point address, while the latter is the start
of the text segment.
> -Message d'origine-
> De : u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-
> boun...@lists.denx.de] De la part de Albert ARIBAUD
> Envoyé : mardi 20 septembre 2011 21:14
> À : u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Objet : Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] arm: provide a CONFIG flag for
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, GROYER, Anthony
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
>
> The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION
> features has revealed two issues.
>
> First issue: the calculation of the relocation o
Le 20/09/2011 20:09, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
>
> In
> message
> you wrote:
>>
>> The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION featu
>> res has revealed two issues.
>
> Could you please restict your line length to some 70 characters or so?
> Than
Dear "GROYER, Anthony",
In message
you wrote:
>
> The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION featu
> res has revealed two issues.
Could you please restict your line length to some 70 characters or so?
Thanks.
> First issue: the calculation of the relocation offset
Hello,
I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION features
has revealed two issues.
First issue: the calculation of the relocation offset was done only if the
relocation is actually done. So we could reach a point w
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
> Hi Simon, Wolfgang,
>
> On Thursday 21 April 2011 12:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
>>>
Another problem I have with relocation is th
Hi Simon, Wolfgang,
On Thursday 21 April 2011 12:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
> wrote:
>> Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
>>
>>> Another problem I have with relocation is that it makes debugging with
>>> JTAG debugers more difficult. The ad
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
>
>> Another problem I have with relocation is that it makes debugging with
>> JTAG debugers more difficult. The addresses of symbols in the ELF
>> target are no longer valid. Of course, you can load
Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
> Another problem I have with relocation is that it makes debugging with
> JTAG debugers more difficult. The addresses of symbols in the ELF
> target are no longer valid. Of course, you can load the symbols at an
> offset from the original location. But one
Dear Wolfgang,
On Friday 25 March 2011 07:42 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<1301058732-30898-1-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com> you wrote:
>> Relocation may not be needed and desirable in many cases:
>> * For many boards the amount of SDRAM is fixed.
>> So relocation
Dear Aneesh V,
In message <1301058732-30898-1-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com> you wrote:
> Relocation may not be needed and desirable in many cases:
> * For many boards the amount of SDRAM is fixed.
>So relocation is not needed.
This is plain wrong. This has been explained a couple of times
b
Forgot to mention that this patch depends on my previous series for MMC
spl:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/96352
This one was anyway intended to initiate the discussion. If approved,
I shall create a cleaner patch.
On Friday 25 March 2011 06:42 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
> Relo
Relocation may not be needed and desirable in many cases:
* For many boards the amount of SDRAM is fixed.
So relocation is not needed.
* Relocation adds un-necessary additional overhead when
it's not needed. This delay is singificant on slower
platforms such as FPGA
* Many boards have a
28 matches
Mail list logo
