On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 13:46 -0500, Haiying Wang wrote: > > In any case, I don't think we want different behavior here based on > > whether we have TPL. Either LDFLAGS is used in partial linking, or > > it's not. > I don't understand why LDFLAGS was added here in patch > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084705.html > > It says "LDFLAGS sets necessary option by partial linking (use in > cmd_link_o_target)." But without this changing, the partial linking > worked well before. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > So if someone can confirm LDFLAGS is not necessary to be added in > cmd_link_o_target, I prefer not add it here.
BTW, I doubt removing --gc-sections for PLATFORM_FLAGS by patch http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084705.html may have the risk of building failure for nand_spl, as we encountered the message "NAND bootstrap too big" before For example, the size for MPC8572DS_NAND_config before applying patch: text data bss dec hex filename 3320 520 0 3840 f00 nand_spl/u-boot-spl After applying that patch: text data bss dec hex filename 3476 520 0 3996 f9c nand_spl/u-boot-spl Once 8572 support is getting bigger as that in BSP, the error message will be triggered. Haiying _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
