Dear Jens Scharsig, dear Andreas Bießmann >> ---8<--- >>> @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@ LoopOsc: >>> ldr r0, =SMRDATA >>> ldr r1, _MTEXT_BASE >>> sub r0, r0, r1 >>> - add r2, r0, #80 >>> + ldr r2, =SMRDATAE >>> + add r2, r2, r1 >> --->8--- > > Ok,this is wrong, But it is code from version 1. The V2 use the correct sub > instruction. > >> Then we subtract TEXT_BASE from absolute address of SMRDATA. This lead to >> some value about 0x500 in r0 which is completely wrong which in turn leads >> to data abort. ... It would make sense to me to do some construct like this >> for relocated code, but here we are before relocation and therefore it would >> be sufficient to > > At boot time flash memory is mapded to 0x0. So the address 0x500 and > 0x10000500 points the same location in flash.
Is there going to be a V3 soon? And please note, when "checkpatching" V2 there are style problems: > ERROR: trailing whitespace > #56: FILE: arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/at91/lowlevel_init.S:119: > +SMRDATAE:^I$ > > ERROR: trailing whitespace > #64: FILE: arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/at91/lowlevel_init.S:166: > +SMRDATA1E:^I^I$ > > total: 2 errors, 0 warnings, 31 lines checked I find it a very valuable tool to do a ../linux-2.6/scripts/checkpatch.pl" before sending the patch ;) Best Regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
