On 11/06/2016 06:21 PM, Alison Wang wrote: >> > [Alison Wang] Thanks for all your comments. > > For the issue about the tree would not be bisect-able, I have > a solution. Actually it is the root cause that 64-bit kernel could not boot > up when U-Boot is running in EL2. I will move these codes from the third patch > to the first patch. > > ENTRY(armv8_switch_to_el2) > switch_el x5, 1f, 0f, 0f > -0: ret > + /* > + * x3 is kernel entry point or switch_to_el1 > + * if CONFIG_ARMV8_SWITCH_TO_EL1 is defined.
I guess you meant EL2 here. > + * When running in EL2 now, jump to the > + * address saved in x3. > + */ > +0: br x3 > 1: armv8_switch_to_el2_m x3, x4, x5 > ENDPROC(armv8_switch_to_el2) > > ENTRY(armv8_switch_to_el1) > switch_el x5, 0f, 1f, 0f > -0: ret > + > + /* > + * x3 is kernel entry point. When running in EL1 > + * now, jump to the address saved in x3. > + */ > +0: br x3 > 1: armv8_switch_to_el1_m x3, x4, x5 > ENDPROC(armv8_switch_to_el1) > > With this re-order, the bitsect issue will be fixed and there is not a point > that kernel could not boot up. > > If you all agree with this re-order, I will send out the v8 patch includes the > first, second and third patches. > Would it be a good idea to setup the simulator and verify booting process? York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
