Dear Haiying.Wang@freescale.com,
In message 1296498767-26408-1-git-send-email-Haiying.Wang@freescale.com you wrote:
From: Haiying Wang Haiying.Wang@freescale.com
commit 8aba9dceebb14144e07d19593111ee3a999c37fc Divides variable of linker flags to LDFLAGS-u-boot and LDFLAGS
breaks the usage of --gc-section to build nand_spl. We still need linker option --gc-section for every uboot image, not only the main one. LDFLAGS_FINAL passes the --gc-sections to each uboot image.
If I understand the intention of the LDFLAGS_u-boot setting corrrectly, then you would have to add a "LDFLAGS_nand_spl" setting.
If you introduce a new LDFLAGS_FINAL instead, then why do we have to keep LDFLAGS_u-boot - isn't LDFLAGS_u-boot also for "final" linking of the U-Boot image?
[Btw: "final" is probably not a technically correct term for all the use cases I see below.]
...
diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk index 5147c35..caa6221 100644 --- a/config.mk +++ b/config.mk @@ -205,8 +205,9 @@ endif AFLAGS := $(AFLAGS_DEBUG) -D__ASSEMBLY__ $(CPPFLAGS)
LDFLAGS += $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) +LDFLAGS_FINAL += -Bstatic $(LDFLAGS)
-LDFLAGS_u-boot += -Bstatic -T $(obj)u-boot.lds $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) +LDFLAGS_u-boot += -T $(obj)u-boot.lds $(LDFLAGS_FINAL)
Is it intentional that you change PLATFORM_LDFLAGS into LDFLAGS here?
Are you sure that this change is correct for all affected boards?
How has this change been tested?
-LDFLAGS = -Bstatic -T $(nandobj)u-boot.lds -Ttext $(CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS) +LDFLAGS_spl := -T $(nandobj)u-boot.lds -Ttext $(CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE) $(LDFLAGS_FINAL)
Arghhh... Here you introduce yet another setting, LDFLAGS_spl ?
This is not mentioned in the commit message. And why do we need it? Isn't LDFLAGS_FINAL enough?
Will I soon see patches to also add LDFLAGS_tpl?
This is becoming a mess. We need to find a simple, clean way to solve this. I'm on the verge of reverting the LDFLAGS_u-boot commit.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk