On 19.11.2018 16:31, Ben Whitten wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: U-Boot [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com Sent: 19 November 2018 08:23 To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com; wenyou.yang@atmel.com Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] ARM: at91: lds: add test SPL binary size and bbs size
From: Wenyou Yang wenyou.yang@atmel.com
Add the test for the SPL binary size and the bbs section size.
Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang wenyou.yang@atmel.com
arch/arm/mach-at91/arm926ejs/u-boot-spl.lds | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/arm926ejs/u-boot-spl.lds b/arch/arm/mach-at91/arm926ejs/u-boot-spl.lds index eca78f8..82098dc 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/arm926ejs/u-boot-spl.lds +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/arm926ejs/u-boot-spl.lds @@ -48,3 +48,13 @@ SECTIONS __bss_end = .; } >.sdram }
+#if defined(CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE) +ASSERT(__image_copy_end - __image_copy_start <
There is no __image_copy_start causing SPL size calculation to error, replacing with __start resolves it.
Thank you, I will modify the patch and test. This means that we can let the SPL in configuration, which is great news.
Eugen
(CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE), \
- "SPL image too big");
+#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE) +ASSERT(__bss_end - __bss_start < (CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE), \
- "SPL image BSS too big");
+#endif
2.7.4
_ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot