[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 00/15] split tegra20 arm7 code into separate SPL

[Allen Martin]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Tom Warren wrote:
> Allen,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Martin [mailto:amartin at nvidia.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:02 PM
> > To: Tom Warren; swarren at wwwdotorg.org; sjg at chromium.org;
> > thierry.reding at avionic-design.de
> > Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Allen Martin
> > Subject: [PATCH v7 00/15] split tegra20 arm7 code into separate SPL
> >
> > This patch series fixes a long standing problem with the tegra20 u-boot
> > build.  Tegra20 contains an ARM7TDMI boot processor and a Cortex A9 main
> > processor.  Prior to this patch series this was accomplished by #ifdefing
> > out any armv7 code from the early boot sequence and creating a single binary
> > that runs on both both the ARM7TDMI and A9.  This was very fragile as
> > changes to compiler options or any additions or rearranging of the early
> > boot code could add additional armv7 specific code causing it to fail on the
> > ARM7TDMI.
> >
> > This patch series pulls all the armv4t code out into a separate SPL that
> > does nothing more than initialize the A9 and transfer control to it.  The
> > resultint SPL and armv7 u-boot are concatenated together into a single
> > image.
> >
> > This patch series is also available from:
> > git://github.com/arm000/u-boot.git
> > branch: tegra-spl-v7
> >
> 
> Applied to u-boot-tegra/next AOK, tested on my Seaboard AOK, so:
> Tested-by: Tom Warren <twarren at nvidia.com>
> 
> Note that I was confused by the final binary name (u-boot-dtb-tegra.bin), since I'm used to flashing u-boot-dtb.bin.
> 
> We need to come to a consensus about the final binary name for Tegra U-Boot (I'd thought we had, and that it would be u-boot-dtb.bin, since that's what most devs are used to looking for in Tegra builds).
> 

Yeah, I'd like some stability there too.  The -dtb rule is not tegra
specific, which is why I didn't want to modify or remove it.  I think
we're the only one that uses it though, so maybe it's not so bad.

> Also, one nit: I see the 2 sign-on strings (U-Boot SPL 2012.04.xxx, and then U-Boot 2012.04.xxx), separated by 2 lines. I think it'd look better if you had them one right after the other, i.e. eliminate the extra linefeeds.
> 

The extra lines come from display_banner() which is ARM generic from
the main u-boot.  I assume they are there to separate the banner from
any junk that was on your screen before you rebooted, so it would make
sense to move them to the SPL banner instead if you have SPL enabled.
I'll make a separate patch for that in a week after I get back from
vacation. 

-Allen
-- 
nvpublic