On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 13:38 -0700, York Sun wrote: > On 10/16/2013 01:33 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 13:32 -0700, York Sun wrote: > >> On 10/16/2013 01:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 13:22 -0700, York Sun wrote: > >>>> On 10/16/2013 12:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:41 -0700, York Sun wrote: > >>>>>> Are SPL and TPL boot methods immune from the size issue here? > >>>>> > >>>>> Sort of. We still need to fit inside existing partition tables. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> PBL boot will be broken if the image size is bigger than 512KB, right? > >>> > >>> It has to be even smaller than that, to make room for early data. > >>> > >> > >> So if we go with 768KB, do we have to convert all PBL boot to SPL boot? > > > > Only the targets that need the extra space. > > > > We have T4, B4 and corenet_ds using PBL boot. They most likely will > exceed the 512KB soon, if not yet. It maybe easier to change all of them > togther, than one by one.
There's no reason to change them all at once. It doesn't make anything easier; it just means you have to do a bunch of testing all at once, and force a change in procedure for users on boards where it otherwise would not have been required. Plus, the 512K limit is for e500v2-based chips. Newer chips have CPC for SRAM which is larger than 512K. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
