From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Haiying Wang Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:07:09 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 7/7] add gc-sections to TPL boot In-Reply-To: <1296240366.2918.104.camel@haiying-laptop> References: <1296190690-21146-1-git-send-email-Haiying.Wang@freescale.com> <1296190690-21146-5-git-send-email-Haiying.Wang@freescale.com> <20110128113646.4567b1fb@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> <1296238110.2918.87.camel@haiying-laptop> <20110128123001.039ce7f6@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> <1296240366.2918.104.camel@haiying-laptop> Message-ID: <1296241629.2918.124.camel@haiying-laptop> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 13:46 -0500, Haiying Wang wrote: > > In any case, I don't think we want different behavior here based on > > whether we have TPL. Either LDFLAGS is used in partial linking, or > > it's not. > I don't understand why LDFLAGS was added here in patch > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084705.html > > It says "LDFLAGS sets necessary option by partial linking (use in > cmd_link_o_target)." But without this changing, the partial linking > worked well before. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > So if someone can confirm LDFLAGS is not necessary to be added in > cmd_link_o_target, I prefer not add it here. BTW, I doubt removing --gc-sections for PLATFORM_FLAGS by patch http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084705.html may have the risk of building failure for nand_spl, as we encountered the message "NAND bootstrap too big" before For example, the size for MPC8572DS_NAND_config before applying patch: text data bss dec hex filename 3320 520 0 3840 f00 nand_spl/u-boot-spl After applying that patch: text data bss dec hex filename 3476 520 0 3996 f9c nand_spl/u-boot-spl Once 8572 support is getting bigger as that in BSP, the error message will be triggered. Haiying