Hi Albert, On Monday, April 1, 2013 10:26:21 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Benoît, > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 02:30:00 +0200 (CEST), Benoît Thébaudeau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Albert, > > > > On Sunday, March 31, 2013 7:30:24 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > Hi Benoît, > > > > > > I have managed to rebase your patch series and have tested it over the > > > ARM targets. This particular patch was the only one to cause an issue, > > > and an amusing one at that: > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:59:24 +0100, Benoît Thébaudeau > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This also fixes support for mx31pdk and tx25, which had been broken by > > > > commit > > > > e05e5de7fae5bec79617e113916dac6631251156. > > > > > > Both boards actually build fine with e05e5de7fae (and have built > > > fine since, at least in all of the routine ARM-wide builds I do as the > > > ARM custodian and where I accept zero build failures or warnings). > > > > Yes, for me too. This was not a build issue, but a runtime one. > > > > > And both boards actually do not build at all with this patch :) and die > > > with the same error: > > > > > > .../spl/u-boot-spl.lds:45: non constant or forward reference address > > > expression for section .bss > > > > > > In both case I have double-checked this using Ubuntu's gcc version > > > 4.7.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-1ubuntu1) or ELDK 5.3's gcc version 4.7.2 > > > (GCC). > > > > OK. That worked fine for me and Fabio at the time I issued the v9, so it > > can be > > the rebase, or something that changed in mainline in the meantime, or the > > toolchain. According to your tests, it's very unlikely that the toolchain > > is > > involved. > > > > I've looked at the Git history, and the guilty commit is 3ebd1cb. But > > thanks to > > commit 65cdd64, this build issue should be easily solved by replacing: > > +#define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT "arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-boot.lds" > > with: > > +#define CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT "arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds" > > in both mx31pdk.h and tx25.h. > > > > Can you please retest with this change? > > Patch 18/30 amended with this change and testing done; all ARM boards > build fine now.
Thanks for testing that. > > This line could even be dropped from tx25.h since there is no arm926ejs SPL > > linker script obstructing the default assignment, contrary to arm1136 for > > mx31pdk, but that would be risky if such a linker script is added later. > > > > Is it still OK for the release if I send v10 on April 8 as I said (so just > > with > > the rebase including the change above if you confirm that everything is OK > > like > > that)? > > You have Scott's acked-by for the NAND parts, and Tom's reviewed-by is > proof enough for me that he is ok with the few non-ARM-only patches, > so the patch series in itself is fine (assuming v10 is identical to > v9 as I rebased it). > > I would just like some reports that boards (mx31pdk and tx25 especially, > but others too, including a few non-ARM to make sure) have no issue > running v10. OK, then it's probably better if I send v10 ASAP. I may not have access to my repo before this date, and I have not kept my v9 bundle in my outbox, so can you just send me back this bundle please? I will try to send a v10 during this week. Best regards, Benoît _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
