On 22/09/10 16:07, Ben Gardiner wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Nick Thompson nick.thompson@ge.com wrote:
On 22/09/10 14:43, Ben Gardiner wrote:
What about removing "#define CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT" as in commit ab86f72c354f9b2572340f72b74ca0a258c451bd ?
Hmmm. It wouldn't hurt I guess. The UBL copies the code to the correct address though doesn't it? The copy is not executed and so the code is redundant - or did I miss something?
Yeah, good point. UBL does copy the code to the correct address -- but I also remember that I needed to remove that define in my testing of Heiko's patches on the da850.
I'll get around to testing -next again soon and I'll try with CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT defined.
No, don't do that. I just did some testing myself. The relocation address is calculated at run time and includes the size of u-boot itself. I got away with it once in my debugger (I was trying to dodge the extra copy), but it broke once I added more code.
You would have to change the UBL on more or less every build of u-boot to skip the copy, which is clearly impractical.
I have removed CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT as you suggested and now everything takes care of itself. I've already sent a v2 patch.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Nick.