Hi, On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Sughosh Ganu <[email protected]> wrote: > hi, > > On Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:26:06AM +0300, Darius Augulis wrote: > >> IMO, if relocation is skipped, r4 should be loaded with value of >> _TEXT_BASE, not reloc address? >> It seems like r3 is prepared for this but, it's somehow missing? It's >> not used at all. >> Maybe it could be reason why I'm facing strange problem, when after >> relocating uboot with nand_spl no one command is not working. >> I debugged that command table is empty. I think this ASM code clears >> not bss area but something else. > > > <snip> > >> >> Also relocation code looks a bit strange: > > <snip> > >> r0 is compared to r6, which contains reloc address. All instructions >> between loading r0 and comparison are confusing, because they do not >> impact comparison result. >> Also they do not matter in clear_bss so I think would be great to >> change code like this: >> >> mov sp, r4 >> >> adr r0, _start >> cmp r0, r6 >> beq clear_bss >> ldr r2, _TEXT_BASE >> ldr r3, _bss_start_ofs >> add r2, r0, r3 /* r2 <- source end address >> */ >> >> Any comments are welcome! > > Not sure which core are you referring to. I checked for arm926ejs, > and we have conditional code inclusion based on the definition of > CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC. So the start address in both the cases > is determined based on whether relocation is enabled or not.
The same is at least for arm926ejs, arm1136, arm1176. As you probably know CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC support will be removed soon and I'm talking about code which is under #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC. Darius. > > -sughosh > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
