From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Huan Wang Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:56:37 +0000 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 6/7] arm: ls102xa: Add SD boot support for LS1021AQDS board In-Reply-To: References: <1411019239-12360-1-git-send-email-b18965@freescale.com> <1411019239-12360-7-git-send-email-b18965@freescale.com> <1411053355745.66856@freescale.com> <279ace7f2f964ccd88b324daf340ec35@CY1PR0301MB0698.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, Albert, > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:53:03 +0000, Huan Wang > wrote: > > > Hi, Albert, > > > > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:45:00 +0000, Huan Wang > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Albert, > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:46:20 +0000, Huan Wang > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Albert, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:47:18 +0800, Alison Wang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + . = ALIGN(4); > > > > > > > > > + .u_boot_list : { > > > > > > > > > + KEEP(*(SORT(.u_boot_list*_i2c_*))); > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IS this required? And if it is, could it not be added to > > > > > > > > the arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds file? This way you would > > > > > > > > not need an .lds file at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Alison Wang] Yes, it is required. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok -- what for? :) > > > > > > [Alison Wang] In SPL part, DDR is initialized by reading SPD > > > > > > through > > > > > I2C interface. > > > > > > For I2C, ll_entry_count() is called, and it returns the > number > > > > > > of elements of a linker-generated array placed into > subsection > > > > > > of .u_boot_list section specified by _list argument. So I > need > > > > > > to > > > add > > > > > this to make I2C work in SPL. > > > > > > > > > > Understood. So your SPL code uses I2C, and for I2C, you need a > > > > > linker list. But then: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to add it in arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds. I > > > > > > > > was not sure adding it in arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds is > > > > > > > > acceptable or > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (assuming the reason why it is needed is valid) If it > causes > > > > > > > no change to boards which do not use it right now (and I > > > > > > > mean 'no change' ad 'binary identical') then this is > > > > > > > acceptable. Make sure you check the binary invariance and > > > > > > > that you mention it in the > > > > > commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Alison Wang] It will cause the binary is not identical for > > > > > > other > > > > > board. > > > > > > > > > > Is this a prediction or an actual observation of compared > builds > > > > > with and without the I2C linker liste addition to the generic > > > SPL .lds? > > > > > > > > [Alison Wang] I use mx31pdk as example. I compared the binaries > > > > with and Without the I2C linker list in > > > > arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds. The binaries are not identical. > > > > > > I have just checked mx31pdk: the u-boot binaries (u-boot, > > > u-boot.bin, u-boot-with-spl.bin, u-boot.map, u-boot.srec) are > indeed > > > different, but that's just normal considering the repository state > > > and build date and time are included in the binaries [1]. > > > > > > OTOH, I see that the u-boot-spl.bin files are identical. > > > > > > The only change I made between the two builds was inserting > > > > > > > . = ALIGN(4); > > > > + .u_boot_list : { > > > > + KEEP(*(SORT(.u_boot_list*_i2c_*))); > > > > + } > > > > > > in arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds at line 34. > > > > > > Can you re-check? > > > > [Alison Wang] Yes, you are right. u-boot-spl.bin files are identical. > > The u-boot binaries (u-boot, u-boot.bin, u-boot-with-spl.bin, u- > boot.map, u-boot.srec) are different only in build date and time. > > > > > > [1] BTW, how do you folks out here proceed when trying to compare > u- > > > boot.bin files from different builds of the same target without the > > > repo state or build date and time affecting the comparison? I use a > > > patch to Makefile that fakes the commit and repo state, and I also > > > use fakelib to force timestamps, but there might be a simpler way. > > > > > [Alison Wang] Oh, your way is very good. I just used vimdiff. > > I'll run a larger-scale check today, to see which SPLs are affected by > adding u-boot_list*, not just u_boot_list*_i2c_*, i.e., maybe we can > make this identical in u-boot.lds and u-boot-spl.lds for ARM. > [Alison Wang] I can't agree with you more on making this identical in u-boot.lds and u-boot-spl.lds for ARM. Anyway, I need to confirm it through your larger-scale check result. Best Regards, Alison Wang