Hi Udit > -----Original Message----- > From: Udit Kumar <udit.ku...@nxp.com> > Sent: 28 February 2019 09:07 > To: Ibai Erkiaga Elorza <ib...@xilinx.com>; u-boot@lists.denx.de > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>; Albert Aribaud > <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>; Meenakshi Aggarwal > <meenakshi.aggar...@nxp.com>; Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de>; Prabhakar > Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushw...@nxp.com> > Subject: RE: [U-Boot][PATCH] arm: arm64 32bit address relocation > > Hi Ibai > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ibai Erkiaga <ibai.erkiaga-elo...@xilinx.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:18 PM > > To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > > Cc: Ibai Erkiaga <ibai.erkiaga-elo...@xilinx.com>; Udit Kumar > > <udit.ku...@nxp.com>; Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>; Albert Aribaud > > <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>; Meenakshi Aggarwal > > <meenakshi.aggar...@nxp.com>; Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de>; Prabhakar > > Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushw...@nxp.com> > > Subject: [U-Boot][PATCH] arm: arm64 32bit address relocation > > > > Current relocation code is limited to 21bit PC-relative addressing > > which might not be enough for bigger code sizes. The following patch > > increases the addressing to 32bit PC-relative. This feature is > > specially interesting if U-Boot is build without optimiation (-O0) as > > the text section is increased significativelly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ibai Erkiaga <ibai.erkiaga-elo...@xilinx.com> > > --- > > > > arch/arm/lib/relocate_64.S | 19 ++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/relocate_64.S b/arch/arm/lib/relocate_64.S > > index 7603f52..6e9658b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/lib/relocate_64.S > > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/relocate_64.S > > @@ -26,9 +26,10 @@ ENTRY(relocate_code) > > /* > > * Copy u-boot from flash to RAM > > */ > > - adr x1, __image_copy_start /* x1 <- Run > > &__image_copy_start */ > > - subs x9, x0, x1 /* x8 <- Run to copy offset */ > > - b.eq relocate_done /* skip relocation */ > > + adrp x1, __image_copy_start /* x1 <- address bits > > [31:12] */ > > + add x1, x1, :lo12:__image_copy_start/* x1 <- address bits [11:00] > > */ > > + subs x9, x0, x1 /* x8 <- Run to copy offset */ > > Should be x9 in comments > The original comment was x8 so did not realize about it. Does take sense to change within my patch? Or should it be done in a different one?
> > + b.eq relocate_done /* skip relocation */ > > /* > > * Don't ldr x1, __image_copy_start here, since if the code is already > > * running at an address other than it was linked to, that > > instruction @@ -42,8 +43,10 @@ ENTRY(relocate_code) > > ldr x1, _TEXT_BASE /* x1 <- Linked > > &__image_copy_start */ > > subs x9, x0, x1 /* x9 <- Link to copy offset */ > > > > - adr x1, __image_copy_start /* x1 <- Run > > &__image_copy_start */ > > - adr x2, __image_copy_end /* x2 <- Run &__image_copy_end */ > > + adrp x1, __image_copy_start /* x1 <- address bits > > [31:12] */ > > + add x1, x1, :lo12:__image_copy_start/* x1 <- address bits [11:00] > > */ > > + adrp x2, __image_copy_end /* x2 <- address bits [31:12] > > */ > > + add x2, x2, :lo12:__image_copy_end /* x2 <- address bits > > [11:00] */ > > copy_loop: > > ldp x10, x11, [x1], #16 /* copy from source address [x1] */ > > stp x10, x11, [x0], #16 /* copy to target address [x0] */ > > @@ -54,8 +57,10 @@ copy_loop: > > /* > > * Fix .rela.dyn relocations > > */ > > - adr x2, __rel_dyn_start /* x2 <- Run &__rel_dyn_start */ > > - adr x3, __rel_dyn_end /* x3 <- Run &__rel_dyn_end */ > > + adrp x2, __rel_dyn_start /* x2 <- address bits [31:12] > > */ > > + add x2, x2, :lo12:__rel_dyn_start /* x2 <- address bits [11:00] > > */ > > + adrp x3, __rel_dyn_end /* x3 <- address bits [31:12] > > */ > > + add x3, x3, :lo12:__rel_dyn_end /* x3 <- address bits [11:00] > > */ > > fixloop: > > ldp x0, x1, [x2], #16 /* (x0,x1) <- (SRC location, fixup) */ > > ldr x4, [x2], #8 /* x4 <- addend */ > > -- > > 1.8.3.1 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
