On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:07:09 -0500 Haiying Wang Haiying.Wang@freescale.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 13:46 -0500, Haiying Wang wrote:
In any case, I don't think we want different behavior here based on whether we have TPL. Either LDFLAGS is used in partial linking, or it's not.
I don't understand why LDFLAGS was added here in patch http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084705.html
It says "LDFLAGS sets necessary option by partial linking (use in cmd_link_o_target)." But without this changing, the partial linking worked well before. Please correct me if I am wrong.
So if someone can confirm LDFLAGS is not necessary to be added in cmd_link_o_target, I prefer not add it here.
BTW, I doubt removing --gc-sections for PLATFORM_FLAGS by patch http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084705.html may have the risk of building failure for nand_spl, as we encountered the message "NAND bootstrap too big" before
Yes, I saw that as well -- we need gc-sections. It just can't go in LDFLAGS.
-Scott