Hi All On 12/6/19 2:48 PM, Giulio Benetti wrote: > Hello Tom, all, > > On 12/6/19 2:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:58:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chot...@st.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> This patch is breaking the STM32MP15 basic boot (spl => u-boot). >>> >>> Looking at socfpga gen5 u-boot.img, this is probably broken as well. >>> >>> And I don't even see any RB or TB tags here :-( >> >> Ugh, what the heck? I applied this because I looked over the changes >> and they seemed correct. I'm quite willing to just revert this but I >> would like to know how it's breaking. Sorry all! >> > > IMHO this is due to wrong images creation with mkinage, especially when > passing parameters with -a and -e flags. > > In my case I need them to be: > -a 0x80002000 (load address) => CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE > -e 0x800023FD (entry point where SPL jumps to) => CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START > > So *maybe* on STM32MP1 and other broken boards -e (CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START) is > not equal to -a (CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) as was assumed before(but wrong). > > Indeed CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START is set to 0 if not specified in u-boot/Makefile: > ` > # U-Boot entry point, needed for booting of full-blown U-Boot > # from the SPL U-Boot version. > # > ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START > CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := 0 > endif > ` > > So probably broken boards try to jump to absolute 0. > A solving patch would be: > ifndef CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START > CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_START := CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE > endif > > What do you think?
This is what i implemented to fix this issue. Here is my proposal [1], but i need some feedback from some boards maintainers. [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=146876 Thanks Patrice > > Sorry for this mess! > > Best regards
