Dear Alexander Holler, > Am 28.10.2010 10:39, schrieb Wolfgang Denk: >> Dear Heiko Schocher, >> >> In message<4cc914d8.4070...@denx.de> you wrote: >>> Hmm.. I think the question is, is CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT not >>> obsolete? >> sorry for a stupid question - how are CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT and >> CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC related to each other? >> > > I've got confused by that too. Currently there are 3 defines in regard > to relocation: > > CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC
Introduced by Heiko as a try to unbreak old boards that are not converted to relocation yet. Basically it #else's between the old code and the new code. As far as I understand that define won't work anymore because of several other changes in u-boot that necessitate fixing the affected boards. > CONFIG_RELOC_FIXUP_WORKS Not needed for ARM when ELF relocation is used. I don't know whether other architectures still need it. Do NOT set it on ARM or you get in trouble by some addresses being relocated twice. > CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT The old way in ARM before ELF relocation was introduced. A misnomer because it seemingly skipped the *COPY* of the image from whereever it was loaded to the TEXT_BASE location. There was no real *RELOCATION* done there. This define probably does not work anymore. It was set on ARM boards where a preloader did load u-boot to the TEXT_BASE address. In an up to date ARM system all those defines MUST NOT be set. Best Regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
