On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:07:09 -0500 Haiying Wang <haiying.w...@freescale.com> wrote:
> 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 Yes, I saw that as well -- we need gc-sections. It just can't go in LDFLAGS. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
