Dear Benoît Thébaudeau, > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 2:53:44 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: > > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 12:47:25 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: > > > On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:49:27 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: > > > > Subject: [PATCH v5 8/8] nand: mxc: Switch NAND SPL to generic SPL > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > - Remove spaces between function name and open parenthesis. > > > > - Fix mx31pdk and tx25 Makefile-s and SPL linker scripts. > > > > - Remove the useless definition of CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT. > > > > - Fix the call to nand_boot(). > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > - New patch. > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: None > > > > Changes in v2: None > > > > > > This is now supposed to be working and compile-tested. > > > > > > Custodians, please review and advise. > > > > > > Board maintainers, please test. > > > > > > Tell me if I should split away some stuff. > > > > > > Should doc/README.arm-relocation be updated, and how since tx25 no > > > longer uses > > > NAND SPL, which is also deprecated? > > > > > > Note that mx31pdk and tx25 had been broken by commit > > > e05e5de7fae5bec79617e113916dac6631251156. After this commit, for those > > > boards, > > > _main called board_init_f, which called relocate_code, which > > > unexpectedly (for > > > their users) returned to nowhere in ctr0.S instead of calling > > > nand_boot. Also, > > > crt0.S calls nand_boot if CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined but > > > CONFIG_NAND_SPL > > > is, which is not normal for NAND SPL. Other NAND SPL boards may be > > > broken too, > > > but that's not too much of an issue since they are supposed to migrate > > > to generic SPL. > > > > I am also wondering if board_init_f should not be moved out of > > mxc_nand_spl.c to > > either <board>/lowlevel_init.S or <board>/<board>.c. That would make > > mxc_nand_spl.c more generic if for some reason a board needs to do > > specific things. Any opinion? > > > > For the start.S files, since it's not possible to know from > > CONFIG_SPL_BUILD and > > CONFIG_NAND_SPL if relocate_code is needed or not, I see the following > > choices: > > 1) Let it defined in all cases. It's quite small, so it won't hurt much. > > 2) Create a specific SPL #define (e.g. CONFIG_SPL_RELOCATE_CODE) to > > define it > > > > for generic SPL only if needed. > > > > 3) Just create a specific linker section for it so that it's > > automatically > > > > garbage-collected if unneeded. > > > > Any opinion?
How much of start.S can be actually rewritten in pure-C ? Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
