Dear Aneesh V,
In message 1305472900-4004-23-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com you wrote:
In SPL console is enabled very early where as in U-Boot it's not. So, SPL can have traces in early init code
Console should _always_ be enabled as early as possible,
while U-Boot can not have it in the same shared code.
Adding a debug print macro that will be defined in SPL but compiled out in U-Boot.
Can we not rather change the code so both configurations behave the same?
--- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap4/clocks.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap4/clocks.c @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ u32 omap4_ddr_clk(void)
core_dpll_params = get_core_dpll_params();
- debug("sys_clk %d\n ", sys_clk_khz * 1000);
- spl_debug("sys_clk %d\n ", sys_clk_khz * 1000);
Do we really need a new macro name? Can this not be the same debug() macro, just generating different code (if really needed) when building the SPL code?
@@ -1318,4 +1328,13 @@ void sdram_init(void)
/* for the shadow registers to take effect */ freq_update_core();
- /* Do some basic testing */
- writel(0xDEADBEEF, CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE);
- if (readl(CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE) == 0xDEADBEEF)
spl_debug("SDRAM Init success!\n");- else
printf("SDRAM Init failed!!\n");- spl_debug("<<sdram_init()\n");
This is beyond the scope of "adding debug traces". it must be split into separate patch.
Also, please do not mess witrhout need with the RAM content - at the very least, restore the previous values.
But then - I wonder why this is needed at all. Are you not using get_ram_size()? Maybe you should fix your code to using it!
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/utils.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/utils.h index d581539..3e847c1 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/utils.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/utils.h @@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ #ifndef _UTILS_H_ #define _UTILS_H_
+#if defined(DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_PRELOADER) +#define spl_debug(fmt, args...) printf(fmt, ##args) +#else +#define spl_debug(fmt, args...) +#endif
NAK. This is neither the right place for such a definition, nor do I want to see this addressed like that.
I recommend to unify the code, so both SPL and non-SPL configurations can use teh same early console behaviour.
void board_init_f(ulong dummy) {
- debug(">>board_init_f()\n"); relocate_code(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_STACK, &gdata, CONFIG_SYS_SPL_TEXT_BASE);
- debug("<<board_init_f()\n");
This is overkill, isn't it?
@@ -166,6 +172,7 @@ void board_init_r(gd_t *id, ulong dummy) switch (boot_device) { case BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1: case BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2:
spl_debug("boot device - MMC2\n");
This is wrong in the BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1 case.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk