ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
PATCH 1/1 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.
--- lib_ppc/board.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
lib_ppc/board.c +1 -1
@@ -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
Signature · 1 line
1.5.5
PATCH 1/1 ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Stefan Roese <[email protected]> wrote:
The patch
70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8(Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't useCFG_MONITOR_BASEanymore. But on 4xx systems_startcurrently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.Signed-off-by Stefan Roese <[email protected]>
Kim
PATCH 1/1 ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
Quoted 12 lines · On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:02 -0500 Kim Phillips <[email protected]>…
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Stefan Roese <[email protected]> wrote:
The patch
70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8(Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't useCFG_MONITOR_BASEanymore. But on 4xx systems_startcurrently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.Signed-off-by Stefan Roese <[email protected]>Acked-by Kim Phillips <[email protected]>
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
PATCH 1/1 ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
Quoted 23 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips at freescale.com]
Sent: den 21 april 2008 23:05
To: Kim Phillips
Cc: Stefan Roese; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net; joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch70431e8athat used_startinstead ofCFG_MONITOR_BASEQuoted 12 lines · On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:02 -0500 Kim Phillips <[email protected]>…
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Stefan Roese <[email protected]> wrote:
The patch
70431e8a7393b6b793f77957f95b999fc9a269b8(Make MPC83xx one step closer to full relocation.) doesn't useCFG_MONITOR_BASEanymore. But on 4xx systems_startcurrently cannot be used for this calculation. So revert back to the original version for now.Signed-off-by Stefan Roese <[email protected]>Acked-by Kim Phillips <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
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
PATCH 1/1 ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
Quoted 9 lines · On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:49:57 +0200 "Joakim Tjernlund"…
Quoted 5 lines
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.
I just reconfirmed it using WD's TOT w/gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-27).
Kim
PATCH 1/1 ppc: Revert patch 70431e8a that used _start instead of CFG_MONITOR_BASE
Quoted 17 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phillips at freescale.com]
Sent: den 22 april 2008 19:28
To: Joakim Tjernlund
Cc: 'Stefan Roese'; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ppc: Revert patch70431e8athat used_startinstead ofCFG_MONITOR_BASEQuoted 6 lines · On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:49:57 +0200 "Joakim Tjernlund"…
Quoted 5 lines
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?
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
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.
I just reconfirmed it using WD's TOT w/gcc version 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-27).
Got gcc 3.4.6 here, so I guess there is some difference between them(or perhaps ld). Can't help you, so do as you wish.
Jocke