On Monday, February 18, 2013 8:37:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 02/17/2013 10:16:49 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> > Hi Poonam, Andy,
> >
> > On Friday, February 15, 2013 9:54:19 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> > > PAD_TO is not a generic SPL configuration option, so use
> > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > We want to use --pad-to with a size, but this option expects an
> > address, so
> > > use
> > > u-boot-spl.bin instead of u-boot-spl as the input file in order to
> > get
> > > addresses
> > > starting at 0.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v7:
> > > - Use u-boot-spl.bin instead of u-boot-spl in order to avoid
> > having to use
> > > --change-addresses.
> > >
> > > Changes in v6:
> > > - Fix size passed to --pad-to thanks to --change-addresses.
> > >
> > > Changes in v5: None
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - New patch.
> > >
> > > Changes in v3: None
> > > Changes in v2: None
> > >
> > > Makefile | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > index a8c7b7b..317dffc 100644
> > > --- a/Makefile
> > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > @@ -486,7 +486,8 @@ $(obj)u-boot.dis: $(obj)u-boot
> > > $(OBJDUMP) -d $< > $@
> > >
> > > $(obj)u-boot-with-spl.bin: $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl.bin
> > $(obj)u-boot.bin
> > > - $(OBJCOPY) ${OBJCFLAGS} --pad-to=$(PAD_TO) -O binary
> > $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl
> > > $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin
> > > + $(OBJCOPY) ${OBJCFLAGS} --pad-to=$(CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE)
> > \
> > > + -I binary -O binary $<
> > $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin
> > > cat $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin $(obj)u-boot.bin > $@
> > > rm $(obj)spl/u-boot-spl-pad.bin
> >
> > I would like to let you know what is going on, and to get your
> > feedback for this
> > patch.
> >
> > include/configs/p1_p2_rdb_pc.h seems to be the only current user of
> > u-boot-with-spl.bin, triggered for example by the P2020RDB-PC_NAND
> > config.
> >
> > Before this patch, PAD_TO was used, but there is no such definition
> > for this
> > board for generic SPL, so this board seems broken,
>
> "--pad-to=" with no argument behaves the same as "--pad-to=0", though
> since it's undocumented we now avoid relying on that behavior as you
> observed in a followup post.
OK.
> > all the more none of the
> > various values defined for CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE relatively to
> > CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE would be compatible with an image built by
> > appending U-Boot
> > to the generic SPL. Can you confirm?
>
> I don't follow. CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE is for where the payload gets
> loaded to, and has nothing to do with its position in the SPL-concat
> image, nor with the address that the SPL starts running at.
Right, sorry, I meant CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS. It is 0, which is not
compatible with the payload being appended to the SPL in the programmed image.
Best regards,
Benoît
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
