Hi Alex, On 20 August 2018 at 16:29, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > > On 20.08.18 20:54, Simon Glass wrote: > > This partially reverts commit 7e21fbca26d18327cf7cabaad08df276a06a07d8. > > > > That change broke sandbox EFI support for unknown reasons. It also changes > > Wouldn't it be better to just figure out the reasons? So far all bugs > I've found were linker script related and quite obvious once you start > to dig into them. > > > sandbox to use--gc-sections which we don't want. > > Why don't we want gc-sections with sandbox?
It is a space optimisation which we don't need for sandbox. It also complicates the object files unnecessarily. Put another way, why is it desirable? > > > For now I am just reverting the sandbox portion as presumably this change > > is safe on other architectures. > > Sandbox is your target, so you're free to do whatever you like :). But > I'm not sure this is the right path forward. I'd rather like to keep > things consistent. In what sense? > > So what do you expect happens with this patch? A resend of a patch 1/18 > by itself doesn't really tell me what you're trying to say. The resend was due to me noticing that people did not get the patch on cc. I only sent this one patch, but I can resend send the whole series if you like. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
