On 09/23/2013 02:31 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:52:02 +0200, Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com wrote:
Zynq lowlevel_init() was implemented in C but stack pointer is setup after function call in _main(). Move architecture setup to arch_cpu_init() which is call as the first function in board_init_f() which already have correct stack pointer.
Reported-by: Sven Schwermer sven.schwermer@tuhh.de Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
I can't see any problem to call zynq setup a little bit later. There is already expectation that u-boot runs from DDR. Moving lowlevel_init from C to ASM is possible but I will have to introduce new macros with hardcoded values. Using structures is much nicer.
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/cpu.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/cpu.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/cpu.c index 4367d1a..8846f30 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/zynq/cpu.c @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@
void lowlevel_init(void) { +}
I'd rather you deleted lowlevel_init() as a C function with this name should not exist.
Ok. Do you want me to create almost empty low_level.S or just use arch/arm/cpu/arvm7/lowlevel_init.S and define empty s_init()?
Thanks, Michal