Hi Masahiro, On 20 April 2015 at 22:30, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > 2015-04-21 12:47 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >> Hi Masahiro, >> >> On 20 April 2015 at 21:42, Masahiro Yamada >> <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-04-16 10:14 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >>>> Unfortunately memset() is not always available, so provide a substitute >>>> when >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> common/init/global_data.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/common/init/global_data.c b/common/init/global_data.c >>>> index 2633f0d..ef055c4 100644 >>>> --- a/common/init/global_data.c >>>> +++ b/common/init/global_data.c >>>> @@ -21,7 +21,15 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top) >>>> top -= sizeof(struct global_data); >>>> top = ALIGN(top, 16); >>>> gd = (struct global_data *)top; >>>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || defined(CONFIG_SPL_LIBGENERIC_SUPPORT) >>>> memset((void *)gd, '\0', sizeof(*gd)); >>>> +#else >>>> + int *ptr = (int *)gd; >>>> + int *end = (int *)(gd + 1); >>>> + >>>> + while (ptr < end) >>>> + *ptr++ = 0; >>>> +#endif >>>> >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN >>>> top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN; >>> >>> >>> This patch implies that all the SPLs should have memset(). >>> >>> Is it better to build lib/ unconditionally? >>> I posted a patch to do so. >>> >>> Please consider to use it as a prerequisite >>> for cleaning up 01/10 and 02/10. >> >> That would be better I think - how did you manage it? I cannot see the >> patch you are referring to. > > It is under moderation because of too many recipients. > (I think you have already received it because you were listed in CC.) > > Please wait until it is approved. > > >> Although what about if SPL is very close >> to the maximum size and adding memset() makes it too large? I suppose >> in that case we would get a build error and notice the problem? > > Buildman-test passed, but I am not sure about run-test. > > For those boards that define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE, > CONFIG_SPL_MAX_FOOTPRINT etc., we should notice the problem at the > build time. (and it did not occur.) > > I'd like to encourage the board maintainers to do run-test just in case. > (and also to support such CONFIG options for boards with the limited > memory footprint)
OK, I tried it out for code size and it looked fine. I will see if I can test it on some boards, but I imagine it would be fine. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
