| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
all arm boards except a few use the same cpu linker script
so move it to cpu/$(CPU)
that could be overwrite in following order
SOC
BOARD
via the corresponding config.mk
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Several boards used different ways to specify the size of the
protected area when enabling flash write protection for the sectors
holding the environment variables: some used CONFIG_ENV_SIZE and
CONFIG_ENV_SIZE_REDUND, some used CONFIG_ENV_SECT_SIZE, and some even
a mix of both for the "normal" and the "redundant" areas.
Normally, this makes no difference at all. However, things are
different when you have to deal with boards that can come with
different types of flash chips, which may have different sector
sizes.
Here we may have to chose CONFIG_ENV_SECT_SIZE such that it fits the
biggest sector size, which may include several sectors on boards using
the smaller sector flash types. In such a case, using CONFIG_ENV_SIZE
or CONFIG_ENV_SIZE_REDUND to enable the protection may lead to the
case that only the first of these sectors get protected, while the
following ones aren't.
This is no real problem, but it can be confusing for the user -
especially on boards that use CONFIG_ENV_SECT_SIZE to protect the
"normal" areas, while using CONFIG_ENV_SIZE_REDUND for the
"redundant" area.
To avoid such inconsistencies, I changed all sucn boards that I found
to consistently use CONFIG_ENV_SECT_SIZE for protection. This should
not cause any functional changes to the code.
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Cc: Paul Ruhland
Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@intracom.gr>
Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Cc: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@denx.de>
Cc: Dave Ellis <DGE@sixnetio.com>
Acked-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Detlev Zundel <dzu@denx.de>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Move machine specific code to smdk6400.
Some board use OneNAND instead of NAND.
Some register MP0_CS_CFG[5:0] are controled by both h/w and s/w.
So it's better to use macro instead of hard-coded value.
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A recent gcc added a new unaligned rodata section called '.rodata.str1.1',
which needs to be added the the linker script. Instead of just adding this
one section, we use a wildcard ".rodata*" to get all rodata linker section
gcc has now and might add in the future.
However, '*(.rodata*)' by itself will result in sub-optimal section
ordering. The sections will be sorted by object file, which causes extra
padding between the unaligned rodata.str.1.1 of one object file and the
aligned rodata of the next object file. This is easy to fix by using the
SORT_BY_ALIGNMENT command.
This patch has not be tested one most of the boards modified. Some boards
have a linker script that looks something like this:
*(.text)
. = ALIGN(16);
*(.rodata)
*(.rodata.str1.4)
*(.eh_frame)
I change this to:
*(.text)
. = ALIGN(16);
*(.eh_frame)
*(SORT_BY_ALIGNMENT(SORT_BY_NAME(.rodata*)))
This means the start of rodata will no longer be 16 bytes aligned.
However, the boundary between text and rodata/eh_frame is still aligned to
16 bytes, which is what I think the real purpose of the ALIGN call is.
Signed-off-by: Trent Piepho <xyzzy@speakeasy.org>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Most of the bss initialization loop increments 4 bytes
at a time. And the loop end is checked for an 'equal'
condition. Make the bss end address aligned by 4, so
that the loop will end as expected.
Signed-off-by: Selvamuthukumar <selva.muthukumar@e-coninfotech.com>
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
|
|
|
SMDK6400 can only boot U-Boot from NAND-flash. This patch adds a nand_spl
driver for it too. The board can also boot from the NOR flash, but due to
hardware limitations it can only address 64KiB on it, which is not enough
for U-Boot. Based on the original sources by Samsung for U-Boot 1.1.6.
Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <lg@denx.de>
|
