On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:08:35PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 09/24/2012 07:04:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 06:54:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On 09/24/2012 06:51:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:19PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Update CONFIG_RAMBOOT and CONFIG_NAND_SPL references to accept
CONFIG_SPL
and CONFIG_SPL_BUILD, respectively. CONFIG_NAND_SPL can be
removed once
the last mpc85xx nand_spl target is gone.
CONFIG_RAMBOOT will need to remain for other use cases, but it
doesn't
seem right to overload it for meaning SPL as well as nand_spl
does. Even
if it's somewhat appropriate for the main u-boot, the SPL itself
isn't
(necessarily) ramboot, and we don't have separate configs for
SPL and
main u-boot. It was also inconsistent, as other platforms
such as
mpc83xx didn't use CONFIG_RAMBOOT in this way.
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com Cc: Andy Fleming afleming@gmail.com
[snip]
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds
b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds
new file mode 100644 index 0000000..372195d --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
[snip]
+OUTPUT_ARCH(powerpc) +SECTIONS
Can we add MEMORY declarations like (some) of the ARM linker scripts do so when we grow beyond the max size it's a link error?
It's already a linker error, because you get an overlap with the reset vector.
OK. Then you can drop the CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE you have later on since that's where we check against it. Or did I miss a user of it in the series?
It's used by the definition of CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE/DST within that same patch. Plus it's nice to document somewhere prominent, and to conform to standard SPL symbols.
OK, just read that part too quick then, thanks for the explanation.