[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/4] mx31pdk: copy SPL directly, not using relocate_code.

[Benoît Thébaudeau]

Hi Albert,

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:50:27 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - dropped relocate_code() call from mx31pdk SPL
> 
>  board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c |   16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c
> b/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c
> index 49158bd..4f6cfee 100644
> --- a/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c
> +++ b/board/freescale/mx31pdk/mx31pdk.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,21 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>  void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
>  {
> -	relocate_code(CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE);
> +	/*
> +	 * copy ourselves from where we are running to where we were
> +	 * linked at. Use ulong pointers as all addresses involved
> +	 * are 4-byte-aligned.
> +	 */
> +	ulong *start_ptr, *end_ptr, *link_ptr, *run_ptr, *dst;
> +	asm volatile ("ldr %0, =_start" : "=r"(start_ptr));
> +	asm volatile ("ldr %0, =_end" : "=r"(end_ptr));

Why not __image_copy_start/end instead? I know that the result will be the same
here, but the naming would be more appropriate. The existing u-boot-spl.lds
still gives access to __image_copy_*.

> +	asm volatile ("ldr %0, =board_init_f" : "=r"(link_ptr));
> +	asm volatile ("adr %0, board_init_f" : "=r"(run_ptr));
> +	for (dst = start_ptr; dst < end_ptr; dst++)
> +		*dst = *(dst+(run_ptr-link_ptr));
> +	/*
> +	 * branch to nand_boot's link-time address.
> +	 */
>  	asm volatile("ldr pc, =nand_boot");
>  }
>  #endif
> --
> 1.7.10.4

Best regards,
Benoît