On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:25:40 -0500 Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:19:38 -0500 Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:41:56 +0200 Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote on 2010/10/12 19:31:25:
that moderate size increase in start.S breaks nand builds:
Configuring for MPC8313ERDB_NAND_66 board... start.o:(.got2+0x4): undefined reference to `_GOT_TABLE_' make[1]: *** [/home/r1aaha/git/u-boot/nand_spl/u-boot-spl] Error 1
ehh, these got there own linker scripts it seems I could #ifdef NAND_SPL I guess? Or possbly select one of GUT/GOT2 based on #if __pic__ == 1
I think NAND_SPL would be clearer, assuming no other differences are involved.
Why? The type of PIC is the distinction. If it can be determined with __pic__, wouldn't that also avoid the extra code being present in the main U-Boot if an older toolchain is used and we end up with -fPIC? And there could be other types of SPL besides NAND.
that's true - I was going for more reader consistency wrt the current code.
The linker scripts for NAND SPL would still have to be updated, though, or else wouldn't it break with a new toolchain that actually uses -fpic? I assume we're not passing different flags when building the SPL.
we're not.
Kim