Hi Albert, On 07/05/2012 08:19 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Zhong Hongbo, > > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:53:46 +0800, Zhong Hongbo <bocui...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi Albert, >> >> Could you applied the patch to the arm tree? >> >> Thanks, >> hongbo >> On 07/03/2012 07:46 AM, Zhong Hongbo wrote: >>> From: Zhong Hongbo <bocui...@gmail.com> >>> >>> In the spl booting step, When __bss_start is equal to __bss_end__, >>> The loop will clear all the things in CPU space. If there are have >>> the same address for this symbol, To skip the clear bss section. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Zhong <bocui...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S | 3 +++ >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S >>> index 76ccef1..c72f337 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S >>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S >>> @@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ clear_bss: >>> /* No relocation for SPL */ >>> ldr r0, =__bss_start >>> ldr r1, =__bss_end__ >>> + cmp r0, r1 >>> + beq skip_clbss >>> #else >>> ldr r0, _bss_start_ofs >>> ldr r1, _bss_end_ofs >>> @@ -271,6 +273,7 @@ clbss_l:str r2, [r0] /* >>> clear loop... */ add r0, r0, #4 >>> cmp r0, r1 >>> bne clbss_l >>> +skip_clbss: > > Clearly the loop was wrong in that it should implement a "for (r0 = > start; r0 < end; r0++)" but actually implements a "for (r0 = > start; r0 != end; r0++)". Ok, Good to known, I will send V2 > > I'd rather the loop be fixed to match the intended implementation > rather than worked around. Please rewrite your patch to turn: Ok,
Thanks, hongbo > >> clbss_l:str r2, [r0] /* clear loop...*/ >> add r0, r0, #4 >> cmp r0, r1 >> bne clbss_l > > Into something like > >> clbss_l:cmp r0, r1 >> blo clbss_d >> str r2, [r0] /* clear loop...*/ >> add r0, r0, #4 >> b clbss_l >> clbss_d: > > Thanks in advance. > > Amicalement, > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
