Hi Albert,
On Friday 11 February 2011 12:09 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Aneesh,
Le 11/02/2011 07:28, Aneesh V a écrit :
Hello Wolfgang, Albert,
On Saturday 05 February 2011 12:28 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Aneesh,
Le 03/02/2011 11:38, Aneesh V a écrit :
On second thoughts I would like to keep the entire bss in SDRAM. With MMC and FAT support, the SPL is already nearing the IRAM budget in OMAP3. It helps to save some space by moving out bss to SDRAM.
If needed, I can fix up the start.S by defining something like _end_of_data. But is that really needed. I do not see any SPL that needs relocation and SDRAM bss at the same time.
"Patches Welcome" :) -- with added thanks for patching all start.S / u-boot.lds in the ARM arch consistently.
I see __u_boot_cmd_end as the end of the image to be relocated in all the scripts. Shall I use this label for this purpose. This will work for now and save me from touching all those linker scripts. However, there is a small possibility of this leading to the same problem as with __bss_start in future. I don't think that should be a big concern. Do you agree?
As you point out, using __u_boot_cmd would cause as much of a concern as the current use of __bss_start, so I see no improvement there.
Please define a label in the linker file. If you haven't got time to port the change to other linkers, don't ; the BSS issue is, for now, specific to your case.
I thought it rather unlikely that the position of __u_boot_cmd will change in future. But I agree with you. Better do it cleanly once and for all. Changing the linker scripts for all cpus should not be a big deal. But I will not be able to test any of them except armv7/omap4
One patch will do, right?
Also, any thoughts on the name for the new label. _end_of_relocated_image is all I can think of?
Best regards, Aneesh
Amicalement,