On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 20:33 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > If I understand the intention of the LDFLAGS_u-boot setting > corrrectly, then you would have to add a "LDFLAGS_nand_spl" setting. No, I don't want to add a LDFLAGS_nand_spl for nand_spl only, I need LDFLAGS_FINAL to be passed to nand spl, tpl, and final uboot images.
> If you introduce a new LDFLAGS_FINAL instead, then why do we have to > keep LDFLAGS_u-boot - isn't LDFLAGS_u-boot also for "final" linking of > the U-Boot image? LDFLAGS_FINAL does not provide the whole set of linker options to U-Boot image, so it does not replace the LDFLAGS_u-boot, in patch: -LDFLAGS_u-boot += -Bstatic -T $(obj)u-boot.lds $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) +LDFLAGS_u-boot += -T $(obj)u-boot.lds $(LDFLAGS_FINAL) > [Btw: "final" is probably not a technically correct term for all the > use cases I see below.] did not think of any better term. > ... > > diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk > > index 5147c35..caa6221 100644 > > --- a/config.mk > > +++ b/config.mk > > @@ -205,8 +205,9 @@ endif > > AFLAGS := $(AFLAGS_DEBUG) -D__ASSEMBLY__ $(CPPFLAGS) > > > > LDFLAGS += $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) > > +LDFLAGS_FINAL += -Bstatic $(LDFLAGS) > > > > -LDFLAGS_u-boot += -Bstatic -T $(obj)u-boot.lds $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) > > +LDFLAGS_u-boot += -T $(obj)u-boot.lds $(LDFLAGS_FINAL) > > Is it intentional that you change PLATFORM_LDFLAGS into LDFLAGS here? Yes. it LDFLAGS_FINAL here includes "-Bstatic $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS)". > Are you sure that this change is correct for all affected boards? Can not 100% sure because I can not test all the affected boards. > How has this change been tested? I only can test powerpc by MAKEALL. > > > -LDFLAGS = -Bstatic -T $(nandobj)u-boot.lds -Ttext > > $(CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) > > +LDFLAGS_spl := -T $(nandobj)u-boot.lds -Ttext $(CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) > > $(LDFLAGS_FINAL) > > > Arghhh... Here you introduce yet another setting, LDFLAGS_spl ? This is an intentional name change. LDFLAGS_spl is used here as LDFLAGS_u-boot, but for nand spl linkage. Actually it is not a new FLAGS, just add *_spl* here so that it can be differed from the LDFlAGS in toplevel config.mk. > This is not mentioned in the commit message. And why do we need it? > Isn't LDFLAGS_FINAL enough? As said, it is not a new flag, just a name change. > > Will I soon see patches to also add LDFLAGS_tpl? Yes, in patch 3/6. > > This is becoming a mess. We need to find a simple, clean way to solve > this. I'm on the verge of reverting the LDFLAGS_u-boot commit. We just want to make sure gc-sections works for all the uboot images. :) Haiying _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
