Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Reinhard Meyer, In message <4c98a78d.7070...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote: > > What bothers me really here is the huge increase in code size. As has been pointed out by others, there are several factors that contribute to that code. > And, on almost all AT91 systems booting will be through

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Albert ARIBAUD, In message <4c98ba84.9040...@free.fr> you wrote: > > > It should be always possible to #define relocation off! > > On arm926ejs this is controlled by CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT and > CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT. For instance, openrd_base, a kirkwood board, > always skips lowleve

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Reinhard Meyer, In message <4c98bec7.9090...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote: > > should be switchable OFF by a configuration option. Who does need that > relocation in the first place? For years ARM did work without it; why now > blowing up the code? Maintenancewise, the relocation is needed t

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Reinhard Meyer
Stefan Roese schrieb: > Please note that this increase is not only because of the new ARM relocation > support, but the environment rework done by Wolfgang: Yes, that, too. About 5.5k next w/o relocation (#define CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC) and w/o cache (#define CONFIG_SYS_NO_[DI]CACHE): 2294

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Reinhard, On Tuesday 21 September 2010 14:39:41 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > Rebasing my current TOP9000 port on u-boot/next compiles > after defining CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE and CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR. > Code size increased heavyly from 223592 to 245544. Please note that this increase is not only b

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Reinhard Meyer
Reinhard Meyer schrieb: > Therefore I strongly suggest that all extras (PIC) needed solely for > relocation > should be switchable OFF by a configuration option. Who does need that > relocation in the first place? For years ARM did work without it; why now > blowing up the code? Sorry, to be prec

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Reinhard Meyer
Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > Le 21/09/2010 14:39, Reinhard Meyer a écrit : >> Rebasing my current TOP9000 port on u-boot/next compiles >> after defining CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE and CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR. >> Code size increased heavyly from 223592 to 245544. >> >> And U-Boot crashes instantly (I know ther

Re: [U-Boot] AT91: problems master vs. next

2010-09-21 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 21/09/2010 14:39, Reinhard Meyer a écrit : > Just to report on preliminary findings I had: > > Rebasing my current TOP9000 port on u-boot/master compiles > and works fine. > Code size increased moderately from 223592 to 223976. > > Rebasing my current TOP9000 port on u-boot/next compiles > after