Hi Benoît, On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:14:12 +0200 (CEST), Benoît Thébaudeau <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Albert, > > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:50:27 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in v2: > > - dropped relocate_code() call from mx31pdk SPL > > > > board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c > > b/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c > > index 49158bd..4f6cfee 100644 > > --- a/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c > > +++ b/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c > > @@ -39,7 +39,21 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > > #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > > void board_init_f(ulong bootflag) > > { > > - relocate_code(CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE); > > + /* > > + * copy ourselves from where we are running to where we were > > + * linked at. Use ulong pointers as all addresses involved > > + * are 4-byte-aligned. > > + */ > > + ulong *start_ptr, *end_ptr, *link_ptr, *run_ptr, *dst; > > + asm volatile ("ldr %0, =_start" : "=r"(start_ptr)); > > + asm volatile ("ldr %0, =_end" : "=r"(end_ptr)); > > Why not __image_copy_start/end instead? I know that the result will be the > same > here, but the naming would be more appropriate. The existing u-boot-spl.lds > still gives access to __image_copy_*. Well, yes, the naming seems appropriate, and I thought and said so myself some time ago. But then, I realize that __image_copy_start and __image_copy_end are tightly coupled with relocation, and I want to avoid creating any additional ties between relocation and SPL just when I am severing them. IOW, I want to keep the option of having a reduced SPL linker file, distinct from the u-boot one, and where none of __image_copy_*, __rel_dyn_* or __dynsym_start exist. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
