Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:49:57 +0200 "Joakim Tjernlund" Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
Currently WD's top of tree renders 83xx kaput. When I revert this revert plus Joakim's original 70431e8 commit, things are back to normal. I'm not going to pretend I know to fix it up correctly, so does anyone have a problem with me sending two revert patches until relocation is properly and comprehensively fixed?
Strange, I got a 8321 and it worked for me. Maybe a toolchain issue? Perhaps I got something extra in my board port, dunno what though.
I just reconfirmed it using WD's TOT w/gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-27).
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips@freescale.com] Sent: den 22 april 2008 19:28 To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: 'Stefan Roese'; u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:49:57 +0200 "Joakim Tjernlund" Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se wrote:
Currently WD's top of tree renders 83xx kaput. When I revert this revert plus Joakim's original 70431e8 commit, things are back to normal. I'm not going to pretend I know to fix it up correctly, so does anyone have a problem with me sending two revert patches until relocation is properly and comprehensively fixed?
Strange, I got a 8321 and it worked for me. Maybe a toolchain issue? Perhaps I got something extra in my board port, dunno what though.
I just reconfirmed it using WD's TOT w/gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-27).
Got gcc 3.4.6 here, so I guess there is some difference between them(or perhaps ld). Can't help you, so do as you wish.
Jocke
participants (2)
-
Joakim Tjernlund -
Kim Phillips