On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:29 AM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:11:36AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:42 AM Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:07:45PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:24 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 01:17:12AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been reports recently that am335x_beaglebone_config > > > > > > > generates bad SPL. > > > > > > > Until that is debugged and fixed, use generic am335x_evm_config > > > > > > > that covers all > > > > > > > AM335x platforms, including BeagleBone variants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it fails to link > > > > > > > > > > > > | arm-yoe-linux-gnueabi-ld.bfd: u-boot-spl section `.rodata' will > > > > > > not > > > > > > fit in region `.sram' > > > > > > | arm-yoe-linux-gnueabi-ld.bfd: region `.sram' overflowed by 5772 > > > > > > bytes > > > > > > | make[2]: *** > > > > > > [/mnt/a/yoe/build/tmp/work/beaglebone-yoe-linux-gnueabi/u-boot-ti-staging/2018.01+gitAUTOINC+2cc52408bf-r24/git/scripts/Makefile.spl:349: > > > > > > spl/u-boot-spl] Error 1 > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, just built u-boot-ti-staging with gcc7 and gcc8 from oe-core, > > > > > as well as > > > > > Linaro gcc7 - no problems. > > > > > > > > My distro inherits poky policies, and on master it now inherits > > > > hardening policies ( security flags) by defaults > > > > do you happen to test poky ? > > > > > > I think we want to take a look at which of the security flags really > > > make sense to use in this context. Thanks! > > > > > > > there could be more to it, since the distro uses thumb2 ISA by > > default, I am not sure > > if u-boot overrides that and builds using arm mode ISA always but > > something to consider, I saw several reports about u-boot overflowing > > sram sections and most of > > the solutions were "oh it works for me" or at the best your toolchain > > is different then mine. here is mine use it and move on. > > Khem, > > Well, FWIW, Tom and I are very familiar with this issue. As a matter of fact, > I first encountered it almost 2 years ago and had to prove there's such an > issue, because everyone was saying it works for them, something must be wrong > with my OE builds... :) > > While .sram region is very limited, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that > all debug symbols from macros like __FILE__ are ended up in that section as > well. So, the longer your build path, the larger the section becomes. Once I > had instructions to reproduce the failure here internally with a series of > long-named nested directories like aaaaaa and bbbbbb, Nishanth started this > thread on U-boot mailing list: > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-March/285031.html > > We've had the corresponding bug open internally all this time, while adding > workarounds to limit .sram section size by other means, like disabling some > options to reduce the code size. Your patch is one of those workarounds... > > But we've been patiently waiting for the following feature to come into gcc to > fix the issue properly: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268 > > Since it's now part of gcc8, we should be able to use it. Not sure how to keep > gcc7 backward compatibility though...
dumping absolute file name strings into SPL seems a waste of space to me, but I will leave that out for now. Moreover it exposes build paths into binaries that user may not be interested to share -ffile-prefix-map has been in OE toolchains since gcc6 and I think we are already using it for kernel builds. We can probably enhance uboot recipes in OE-Core to use this option if compiler supports it. That solves my problem. -- _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
