Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> schrieb am Di., 30. Okt. 2018, 13:50: > On 30.10.18 13:37, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:28 PM Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> wrote: > >> > >> On 30.10.18 12:17, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> > diff --git a/include/configs/socfpga_common.h > b/include/configs/socfpga_common.h > >>> > index 2330143cf1..bd8f5c8c41 100644 > >>> > --- a/include/configs/socfpga_common.h > >>> > +++ b/include/configs/socfpga_common.h > >>> > @@ -31,8 +31,21 @@ > >>> > #define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR 0xFFE00000 > >>> > #define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_SIZE 0x40000 /* > 256KB */ > >>> > #endif > >>> > + > >>> > +/* > >>> > + * Some boards (e.g. socfpga_sr1500) use 8 bytes at > the end of the internal > >>> > + * SRAM as bootcounter storage. Make sure to not put > the stack directly > >>> > + * at this address to not overwrite the bootcounter > by checking, if the > >>> > + * bootcounter address is located in the internal > SRAM. > >>> > + */ > >>> > +#if ((CONFIG_SYS_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR > > CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR) && \ > >>> > + (CONFIG_SYS_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR < > (CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR + \ > >>> > + > CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_SIZE))) > >>> > +#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR > CONFIG_SYS_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR > >>> > +#else > >>> > #define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR > \ > >>> > (CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR + > CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_SIZE) > >>> > +#endif > >>> > >>> > >>> Can we have this check on CONFIG_INIT_RAM_SIZE instead of the > >>> initial stack pointer? > >>> > >>> That would ensure the SPL size checks stay intact. > >> > >> I'm not really sure what you mean with this. Could you please > >> explain in more detail? > > > > Sorry for being unclear. What I meant was: currently > > CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_SIZEis 0x10000 (the full 64 kByte). > > So if CONFIG_SYS_BOOTCOUNT_ADDR is 0xfffffff8, I think we should > > define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_SIZE to 0xfff8. That way, not only the > > CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR define is correct but CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE is > > checked to not overlap this address, too. > > > > Would that make sense to you? > > Yes, I thought that you meant it this way. I'm not sure if we > should go this way. As we would change CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_SIZE > to something that does not represent the physical size of the > on-chip SRAM. This could be very confusing and misleading, if > this define is used elsewhere. >
Hmm, okay. I dont want to push you there. I just thought it would be good to have the SPL binary size check correct... Simon > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
