Dear Wolfgang, On 08.04.12 22:06, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Alexandre Belloni, > > In message <1333909023-6725-1-git-send-email-alexandre.bell...@piout.net> you > wrote: >> On at91sam platforms, u-boot grew larger than the allocated size in >> dataflash, the layout was: >> bootstrap 0x00000000 >> ubootenv 0x00004200 >> uboot 0x00008400 >> kernel 0x00042000 >> >> u-boot with the defconfig doesn't seem to fit in 0x42000 - 0x8400 = >> 0x39C00 bytes anymore. >> >> Now, the layout is: >> bootstrap 0x00000000 >> ubootenv 0x00004200 >> uboot 0x00008400 >> kernel 0x00084000 > > Where are these odd sizes like > >> #define CONFIG_ENV_SIZE 0x4200 > > coming from? Has a size of 0x4200 any special maning on these > systems?
please read Ulfs mail: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/123862/focus=125897 I think it is OK to apply this patch. All these atmel boards need some more attention (lack of maintainer). Reinhard started to migrate a lot of stuff but unfortunately this process is not completely finished. I will not say it is left undone but there is still a lot to do. I think another point is that these Atmel devices became less important than before in U-Boot (I see not really much users here even though a lot of people use it): a) a lot of users favor the at91bootstrap SPL to boot linux (no need for u-boot) b) they have well-hung cores best regards Andreas Bießmann PS: besides a) there was a user in irc around Christmas who count 'the SPL for atmel devices in U-Boot' a good idea. He said he wants to play with it ... I wonder if he does. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
