[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de --- lib_ppc/board.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib_ppc/board.c b/lib_ppc/board.c index 7d33914..b2bc4eb 100644 --- a/lib_ppc/board.c +++ b/lib_ppc/board.c @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ void board_init_f (ulong bootflag) * - monitor code * - board info struct */ - len = (ulong)&_end - (ulong)&_start + EXC_OFF_SYS_RESET; + len = (ulong)&_end - CFG_MONITOR_BASE;
/* * Subtract specified amount of memory to hide so that it won't
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de
Acked-by: Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com
Kim
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:02 -0500 Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de
Acked-by: Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com
hmm..I seem to have false-acked this due to a bug in a build script of mine.
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?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips@freescale.com] Sent: den 21 april 2008 23:05 To: Kim Phillips Cc: Stefan Roese; u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net; joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:02 -0500 Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
The patch 70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8 (Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't use CFG_MONITOR_BASE anymore. But on 4xx systems _start currently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de
Acked-by: Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com
hmm..I seem to have false-acked this due to a bug in a build script of mine.
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.
If you revert it we are probably not going to solve it. I got no clue though. Are any other 83xx users out there?
Jocke
participants (3)
-
Joakim Tjernlund -
Kim Phillips -
Stefan Roese