-----Original Message----- From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 14:06 PM To: Zang Roy-R61911 Cc: Wolfgang Denk; U-Boot-Users ML Subject: Re: 85xx: MPC8536DS board does not build
On Aug 10, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Zang Roy-R61911 wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 13:41 PM To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: U-Boot-Users ML; Zang Roy-R61911 Subject: Re: 85xx: MPC8536DS board does not build
On Aug 10, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <0EB7516A-2F14-42F7- A6ED-555ADFAB3105@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
Allocate more space for U-Boot?
I might turn of BEDBUG as its never been properly enabled on e500/85xx platforms.
Is there any problem with the bigger image which I don't
understand
yet? Normally we just move down the TEXT_BASE by a sector,
and that's
it.
Not specifically, its just that ever 85xx image to date has been 512k. I'm just trying to avoid this being the first one that changes that historic fact. Especially since compilers like
gcc-4.3 seem to
be able to fit the size in 512k.
We may have more requirements to support graphic in u-boot. Sooner and later, the size will exceed 512K. Should we have
some plan
for this?
So if we are going to increase the limit from 512k do we go to 768k or 1M? (Sector size on the board appears to 128k)
If there is no special reason, I'd like to expand it to 768K. But my concern here is that it is better to limit 8536DS image to 512K. For SD/NAND boot code, the u-boot will be copy to L2 cache. It is only 512K.
I would also like to know how big the flashes are on some of the other 85xx boards that u-boot supports. From 8540ads board, at lease we may have 4M flash to use considering the
swap. Roy