Hi Albert,
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 4:23:58 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Benoît,
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:43:37 +0200 (CEST), Benoît Thébaudeau
> <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Albert,
>
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds
> > > index 3c0d99c..89ef9ce 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds
> > > @@ -88,6 +88,12 @@ SECTIONS
> > > /DISCARD/ : { *(.gnu*) }
> > > }
> > >
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE)
> > > -ASSERT(__bss_end < (CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE + CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE), "SPL
> > > image
> > > too big");
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE)
> > > +ASSERT(__image_copy_end - __image_copy_start < (CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE), \
> >
> > The possible relocation and MMU data is also part of the binary image file,
> > so
> > that would be __bss_start rather than __image_copy_end above, and README
> > should
> > be updated to reflect this.
>
> Actually, mmutable is not used in any SPL; it is used only in targets
> h2200, lubbock, palmtc, pxa255_idp and xaeniax, none of which use SPL.
> I have just confirmed this with a MAKEALL -a arm and a grep on all map
> files.
>
> This presence of mmutable in u-boot-spl.lds is in fact an overlook
> that I missed when I created this file from u-boot.lds. I have just
> finished verifying that removing the mmutable section altogether does
> not change a single bit to any of the 309 ARM platforms currently built
> under MAKEALL -a arm.
>
> I'll remove mmutable entries from u-boot-spl.lds in V2.
OK, that's perfect for MMU data, but what about relocation data?
Best regards,
Benoît
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
