[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] [new uImage] Fix build errors when CONFIG_LOGBUFFER and CONFIG_FIT are enabled

[Marian Balakowicz]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <20080507070353.7403.39121.stgit at hekate.izotz.org> you wrote:
>> Recent modifcations to LOGBUFFER handling code were incorrecly
>> introduced to fit_check_kernel() routine during
>> "Merge branch 'new-image' of git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-testing",
>> commit 27f33e9f45ef7f9685cbdc65066a1828e85dde4f.
>>
>> This patch cleans up this merge issue.
> 
> Ummm... but don't you break logbuffer support that way?
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Marian Balakowicz <m8 at semihalf.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  common/cmd_bootm.c |   11 -----------
>>  common/image.c     |    4 ----
>>  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/common/cmd_bootm.c b/common/cmd_bootm.c
>> index 44f6b9f..0d67132 100644
>> --- a/common/cmd_bootm.c
>> +++ b/common/cmd_bootm.c
>> @@ -433,17 +433,6 @@ static int fit_check_kernel (const void *fit, int os_noffset, int verify)
>>  	}
>>  	show_boot_progress (105);
>>  
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOGBUFFER
>> -#ifndef CONFIG_ALT_LB_ADDR
>> -	kbd=gd->bd;
>> -	/* Prevent initrd from overwriting logbuffer */
>> -	if (initrd_high < (kbd->bi_memsize-LOGBUFF_LEN-LOGBUFF_OVERHEAD))
>> -		initrd_high = kbd->bi_memsize-LOGBUFF_LEN-LOGBUFF_OVERHEAD;
>> -	debug ("## Logbuffer at 0x%08lX ", kbd->bi_memsize-LOGBUFF_LEN);
>> -#else
>> -	debug ("## Logbuffer at 0x%08lX ", CONFIG_ALT_LB_ADDR);
>> -#endif
>> -#endif
> 
> Well, it's easy to remove the code here, but if serves a purpose, so
> it cannot be simply removed without adding it somewhere else. Or am I
> missing something?

This piece of the code was removed earlier with one of the Kumar's
patches that added LMB support for booting allocations.

Then it got incorrectly merged back in a wrong place, which this patch
intends to fix.

As to the check itself:
- it seem bogus, it does not properly check for initrd and logbuffer
areas overlaps
- it does not take into account the recent "effective" memory size
limitation introduced for ppc

I'll post a separate, preliminary patch that will attempt to implement
the check in a proper way.

Cheers,
Marian