> Am 27.06.2017 um 13:52 schrieb Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com>: > >> On 27.6.2017 13:46, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >>> On 27.06.17 13:20, Michal Simek wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On 27.6.2017 13:01, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> I don't think that's going to work - at least not without compiler flag >>>> changes. By default, gcc will happily generate unaligned accesses. If >>>> you disable dcache, these will trap. >>> >>> What's that compiler flags we should be using to avoid that? >> >> It's a combination of >> >> -mstrict-align >> >> plus crossing fingers with lots of praying plus making sure that every >> code you call also follows -mstrict-align plus double-checking that you >> don't break the kernel booting ABI: >> >> >> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.12-rc7/source/Documentation/arm64/booting.txt >> >> >> In the booti case, disabling dcache seems to be legitimate. In the >> bootefi case however, it's not. > > Non wants to boot the kernel. It is really about programming stuff. > >> >> So you will also need to set CONFIG_EFI_LOADER to depend on >> !CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF which means you will want to convert >> CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF to Kconfig first :). > > ok. I will let Siva to do it just wanted to refresh this topic. > > >>> The reason for this change is to have really small u-boot which fits to >>> OCM without DDR to be able to do initial programming. >> >> Yup, makes sense. I'm just slightly scared by the idea :). > > The same stuff we did on Zynq in past. > I have never had enough time to look at that MMU mapping why it is so > huge. Maybe reduce size of that tables or using different page size is > better way to go.
If you configure your section boundaries on natural alignments (1GB IIRC), you should get away with quite few tables. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
