On Monday, February 18, 2013 6:27:50 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > Commit 74752ba performs a '--pad-to=$(or $(CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO),0)' > > on u-boot-spl. I could use this CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO for this series > > too, but is it really necessary to have both CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO and > > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE? In other words, is there any case for which > > CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO could be different from CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE + > > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE for a valid reason? > > I was wondering along those lines. I don't _think_ we need both > CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO and CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE, but we can't combine > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE and CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE as on TI platforms we > start quite well above zero (0x402F0400 on am33xx, etc). That said, I > guess we do need CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO so that some platforms can do: > #define CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO (CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE + CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE) > and others just > #define CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE
If we did like my patch here, i.e. use objcopy with u-boot-spl.bin instead of u-boot-spl, objcopy would always get a fake 0x0 address at the beginning of the .bin, so CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE could be used with --pad-to, and CONFIG_SPL_PAD_TO would be useless. The only question is if we may need to have an empty gap between the SPL and U-Boot within the resulting image. I don't think so since that would mean that the target memory device has an area that is not really available at the location of this gap. Best regards, Benoît _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
