[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ARM926: compile cpu_init_crit function only if CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT is not defined

[Gururaja Hebbar K R]

Hi,
 
At present in "start.S" inside cpu\arm926ejs,   cpu_init_crit is called only if "CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT" is not defined 
 
#ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
 bl cpu_init_crit
#endif
 
But "cpu_init_crit" function  doesnt have any if defs which means cpu_init_crit function will compile irrespective of  "CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT". Hence the patch. The same is done in other processor files. Kindly check "cpu\arm920t\start.S" 

Regards

Gururaja


________________________________

From: Dirk Behme [mailto:dirk.behme at googlemail.com]
Sent: Wed 19-Dec-07 3:27 PM
To: Gururaja Hebbar K R
Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] ARM926: compile cpu_init_crit function only if CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT is not defined



Hebbar wrote:
> This patches allows cpu_init_crit function to be compilled only if
> CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT is not defined. At present irrespective of
> CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT, cpu_init_crit is always compilled. This is for
> arm926ejs module.
>
> Signed-off-by: K R Gururaja Hebbar <gururajakr at sanyo.co.in>
>
>
> --- u-boot-1.3.1/cpu/arm926ejs/start.S        2007-12-06 01:21:19.000000000 -0800
> +++ uboot/cpu/arm926ejs/start.S       2007-12-19 08:40:37.296875000 -0800
> @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ clbss_l:str       r2, [r0]                /* clear loop... 
>  _start_armboot:
>       .word start_armboot
> 
> -
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
>  /*
>   *************************************************************************
>   *
> @@ -225,6 +225,9 @@ cpu_init_crit:
>       bl      lowlevel_init   /* go setup pll,mux,memory */
>       mov     lr, ip          /* restore link */
>       mov     pc, lr          /* back to my caller */
> +    
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT */
> +    
>  /*
>   *************************************************************************
>   *
> I welcome comments, complaints, suggestions and advices.

The reason for this is to decrease resulting binary size? If so, all
lowlevel_init() should be encapsulated as well to save even more space?

Dirk



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20071219/c56e5a54/attachment.htm