On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:32:54PM +0200, Beno??t Th??baudeau wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:00:30 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Beno??t Th??baudeau wrote: > > > Hi Albert, > > > > > > On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:00:43 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > > Hi Beno??t, > > [snip] > > > > IIUC, this future patch would increase the limit for SPL run-time size, > > > > as the constant against which the ASS tests __bss_end for would > > > > necessarily be greater than it is now. Correct? If so, this future > > > > patch should not break any target, as it would loosen the constraint, > > > > not tighten it. > > > > > > Yes, it would either be the same or relaxed a bit, depending on the chosen > > > option: > > > - Define CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE and test against CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE + > > > CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE, the sum remaining the same as or being larger > > > than > > > currently, depending on the new values for CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE and > > > CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE. > > > - Define a new config meaning text + data + rodata + bss (e.g. > > > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_RAM_SIZE or CONFIG_SPL_MAX_MEM_FOOTPRINT), and just > > > replace > > > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE with it for the users of arch/arm/cpu/u-boot*.lds, > > > taking > > > care that this was the only meaning those users were giving to > > > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE. > > > > > > The first option would probably be preferable, using the same value for > > > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE, and a non-zero value for CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE. > > > > I think the problem is that Tegra really needs the second case as their > > constraint is "must fit below next part of payload". We can assume the > > users of that linker script today care about footprint and update their > > define I believe. da850evm and the rest of the davinci platforms would > > also be a case to convert to this, but the omap*/am3* platforms would > > not. > > Yes, then let's have an assert in arch/arm/cpu/u-boot*.lds with a > different config name (as in option 2 above) just for Tegra, and > another assert for CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE against __bss_start. > > And all users of CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE should be checked to make sure > that there is not another special case somewhere.
I didn't audit the PowerPC targets, but on ARM we have, roughly: - Tegra (covered in Stephen's email, and in short, must include BSS in size check) which uses SPL_MAX_SIZE to include BSS - OMAP*/AM3* which does not constrain BSS to SPL_MAX_SIZE - DaVinci which must also constrain BSS to the initial RAM, but for different reasons. - iMX which also uses SPL_BSS_MAX to cover the BSS separate from the rest of the program. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
