On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:14:12 +0200, Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> wrote: > > > Fix a problem with a re-assignment of r8 in the SPL version. > > > > This patch now moves the call to s_init() to a later stage, right before > > calling board_init_f(). And makes sure that r8 is correctly initialized > > before s_init() is called. r8 now is only written in crt0.S. > > > > This error was detected on the SPL port for the Compulab CM-T35 board > > (OMAP3530). > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> > > --- > > Albert, I'm not really happy with this patch as it evolves now. As you > > will see, I had to make some further additions to crt0.S to fix a > > problem for non-SPL builds and to fix compilation errors for non-OMAP > > platforms. This gets quite ugly now. Looking back at my patch v1, this > > looks much less intrusive. > > > > What do you think? > > I said the first patch was NAK, and the reasons I NAKed it remain. > > However, there might be another solution: instead of squeezing the > call to s_init() in crt0.S right between the initial environment > setting and the call to board_init_f(), we could simply move the > s_init() call inside board_init_f(). > > From a running conditions perspective, the only change would be that > s_init() is going to run from a non-empty stack, but we know that there > is free stack enough during board_init_f() to call functions. > > Moving the call to s_init() into board_init_f() removes any changes to > crt0.S, which were my essential NAK reason and saves you some ugliness. > > I would even hazard that you could place s_init in init_sequence[], for > instance as a first entry to be called (before arch_cpu_init). After > all, the only difference in execution is that gdata is going to be > initialized properly before s_init() kicks in. > > Also, a name change would be in order, because s_init() as a private > OMAP function is ok, but as an init function invoked from board_init_f() > it needs a more meaningful name.
So, this is one of the things that needs resolving for v2013.07. What do you want to call the renamed s_init function? I think we need to go the init_sequence route, and keep common/board_f.c in sync (I did a trivial test the other week about moving am335x into the generic board framework and it went fine, so I'll want to move all the TI boards I can over soon). Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
