From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:43:33 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT still used? In-Reply-To: <4CCAB0B8.2060503@ahsoftware.de> References: <4CC914D8.4070101@denx.de> <20101028083950.20A74152451@gemini.denx.de> <4CC94F39.7050302@ahsoftware.de> <4CC95B9E.3040108@emk-elektronik.de> <4CC96279.3030901@ahsoftware.de> <4CCA94C3.8050502@free.fr> <4CCAB0B8.2060503@ahsoftware.de> Message-ID: <4CCAB365.2030105@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 29/10/2010 13:32, Alexander Holler a ?crit : >>> In regard to CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT I've hit a typo in >>> arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/start.S while trying to use this define to build >>> a non relocatable u-boot. In line 383 there is >>> >>> ldr pc, r0 >>> >>> which seems to should be >>> >>> ldr pc, [r0] >> >> I don't think it should. r0 is computed to be the address at which to >> branch, so the branch there is direct, not indirect. That could be >> changed to "mov pc, r0" for clarity, though. > > binutils 2.20.1 doesn't like "ldr pc, r0". So then it must be "mov pc, > r0" if "ldr pc, [r0]" is wrong. "mov pc, r0" it is, then -- or better yet, replace add r0, r0, r1 mov pc, r0 with add pc, r0, r1 > And above I used the wrong define, this code is only active when > > CONFIG_SYS_ARM_WITHOUT_RELOC is defined. Understood. Do you want to submit a patch, or should I do it? > Regards, Alexander Amicalement, -- Albert.