Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] mpc83xx: New board support for SIMPC8313
--- On Fri, 1/23/09, Ron Madrid ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net wrote:
From: Ron Madrid ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] mpc83xx: New board support for SIMPC8313 To: "Kim Phillips" kim.phillips@freescale.com Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 2:29 PM --- On Fri, 1/23/09, Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote:
+ENTRY(_start) +ASSERT(_end <= 0xfff01000,
"NAND
bootstrap
too big");
Ron, the above gets asserted when building
for
large page
nand with a gcc 4.1.2 based toolchain:
Please forgive my ignorance, but how can I go
about
fixing this? How do I
determine my toolchain and how can I use the same
one
you are referring to?
Are there any documents that can point me in the
right
direction?
I'm just using what Fedora brought to me on my G5
box
(native compiler). I still use it because it's close to
what
the ELDK version is (or used to be - I can't immediately tell which version the ELDK is using right now). Where/when did you get your
toolchain?
I am using the one that came with FC4. I'm guessing that I should go ahead an update my gcc. I'm in the middle of doing that. I'll get back to you if I discover anything and then of course I'll resubmit.
I upgraded my gcc and did not see any difference in the builds. I'm not sure where to go from here.
Ron
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:36:40 -0800 (PST) Ron Madrid ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net wrote:
--- On Fri, 1/23/09, Ron Madrid ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net wrote:
From: Ron Madrid ron_madrid@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] mpc83xx: New board support for SIMPC8313 To: "Kim Phillips" kim.phillips@freescale.com Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 2:29 PM --- On Fri, 1/23/09, Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote:
+ENTRY(_start) +ASSERT(_end <= 0xfff01000,
"NAND
bootstrap
too big");
Ron, the above gets asserted when building
for
large page
nand with a gcc 4.1.2 based toolchain:
Please forgive my ignorance, but how can I go
about
fixing this? How do I
determine my toolchain and how can I use the same
one
you are referring to?
Are there any documents that can point me in the
right
direction?
I'm just using what Fedora brought to me on my G5
box
(native compiler). I still use it because it's close to
what
the ELDK version is (or used to be - I can't immediately tell which version the ELDK is using right now). Where/when did you get your
toolchain?
I am using the one that came with FC4. I'm guessing that I should go ahead an update my gcc. I'm in the middle of doing that. I'll get back to you if I discover anything and then of course I'll resubmit.
I upgraded my gcc and did not see any difference in the builds. I'm not sure where to go from here.
me neither. I know it works with gcc 4.2, just not gcc 4.1, and I don't know what version the ELDK currently uses. I'll just take it since it's so early in the cycle, and WD seems to be overtaking me in 83xx patches anyway ;). I expect the issue to be fixed before the next release though.
Kim
Dear Kim Phillips,
In message 20090123175552.3f60db0b.kim.phillips@freescale.com you wrote:
me neither. I know it works with gcc 4.2, just not gcc 4.1, and I don't know what version the ELDK currently uses. I'll just take it since it's so early in the cycle, and WD seems to be overtaking me in 83xx patches anyway ;). I expect the issue to be fixed before the next release though.
ELDK uses:
ELDK 4.0: gcc version 4.0.0 ELDK 4.1: gcc version 4.0.0 ELDK 4.2: gcc version 4.2.2
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:14:16 +0100 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
In message 20090123175552.3f60db0b.kim.phillips@freescale.com you wrote:
me neither. I know it works with gcc 4.2, just not gcc 4.1, and I don't know what version the ELDK currently uses. I'll just take it since it's so early in the cycle, and WD seems to be overtaking me in 83xx patches anyway ;). I expect the issue to be fixed before the next release though.
ELDK uses:
ELDK 4.0: gcc version 4.0.0 ELDK 4.1: gcc version 4.0.0 ELDK 4.2: gcc version 4.2.2
great, then all should be ok.
Thank you Wolfgang,
Kim
participants (3)
-
Kim Phillips -
Ron Madrid -
Wolfgang Denk