On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ilya Yanok <ya...@emcraft.com> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 13.12.2011 23:30, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x80008000 >>>> [snip] >>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR 0x300 /* address >>>>> 0x60000 */ >>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_MMC_SD_FAT_BOOT_PARTITION 1 >>>>> +#define CONFIG_SPL_FAT_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME "u-boot.img" >>>> >>>> You're able to have CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE that low and not have the >>>> corruption problem devkit8000 had? >>> >>> No, I can't see any problems. I have to say I can't do _real_ MMC boot, >>> as my board lacks the required jumper, so I'm testing it but starting >>> SPL from NAND, rewriting omap3_boot_device to be MMC with BDI and >>> running it further. It reads u-boot.img from MMC and starts it without >>> any problem. >> >> Well, is it just your board that's missing the jumper, or the MCX HTWK >> lacks the jumper? If the latter, just drop the MMC bits out :) > > I can't ;) this was an explicit requirement. > > As for the devkit8000 boot problem, I have BSS set up close to the top > of the RAM. Probably that's the reason I don't see any problems. > > Unfortunately, I can't recall why I had moved BSS... It clashed with > something but I don't remember the details.
OK. I _want_ to put this into my /next branch (and thanks for working over all of the issues that've popped up since you first posted the series) but I also would like to try and keep differences for difference sake out of the SPL implementations since I know other folks are starting to look at the code and port their custom boards or in-tree boards and I'm sure they'll go "why does X place things here and Y there and my board isn't working?". So if you can try and recall what the clash was (and we can comment it, or maybe it was the FAT thing :)) I'd really appreciate it. -- Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
