Hi Aneesh, Le 11/02/2011 07:28, Aneesh V a écrit : > Hello Wolfgang, Albert, > > On Saturday 05 February 2011 12:28 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Hi Aneesh, >> >> Le 03/02/2011 11:38, Aneesh V a écrit : >> >>> On second thoughts I would like to keep the entire bss in SDRAM. With >>> MMC and FAT support, the SPL is already nearing the IRAM budget in >>> OMAP3. It helps to save some space by moving out bss to SDRAM. >>> >>> If needed, I can fix up the start.S by defining something like >>> _end_of_data. But is that really needed. I do not see any SPL that >>> needs relocation and SDRAM bss at the same time. >> >> "Patches Welcome" :) -- with added thanks for patching all start.S / >> u-boot.lds in the ARM arch consistently. > > I see __u_boot_cmd_end as the end of the image to be relocated in all > the scripts. Shall I use this label for this purpose. This will work > for now and save me from touching all those linker scripts. However, > there is a small possibility of this leading to the same problem as > with __bss_start in future. I don't think that should be a big concern. > Do you agree?
As you point out, using __u_boot_cmd would cause as much of a concern as the current use of __bss_start, so I see no improvement there. Please define a label in the linker file. If you haven't got time to port the change to other linkers, don't ; the BSS issue is, for now, specific to your case. > Best regards, > Aneesh Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
