[U-Boot] [PATCH V7 5/5] omap-common: fixes BSS overwriting problem

[Simon Schwarz]

On 12/06/2011 06:18 PM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> On 31/10/2011 17:23, Simon Schwarz wrote:
>> From: Simon Schwarz<simonschwarzcor at googlemail.com>
>>
>> spl_nand overwrote BSS section because it reads a whole block everytime. Now
>> loads the block to spare area and just copy the needed junk to destination.
>> Whole block read is necessary for ecc check!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Schwarz<simonschwarzcor at gmail.com>
>> ---
>
>> @@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ void spl_nand_load_image(void)
>>   			CONFIG_SYS_NAND_PAGE_SIZE, (void *)header);
>>   		spl_parse_image_header(header);
>>   		nand_spl_load_image(CONFIG_SYS_NAND_SPL_KERNEL_OFFS,
>> -			spl_image.size, (void *)spl_image.load_addr);
>> +			spl_image.size,
>> +			(void *)spl_image.load_addr - sizeof(header));
>                                                               ^---
>
>
> Do you mean maybe sizeof(*header) ?
>
> However, spl_image.load_addr was already decremented in
> spl_parse_image_header() and correctly set to 64 byte before the load
> address. Do we really need it ?
>
> I found the readon of the kernel corrupt image. We are setting a very
> hard address in /nand_spl_simple.c:
>
> ecc_calc = (u_char *)(CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE + 0x10000);
>
> Because the image for a TI SOC is loaded at 0x80008000, we have a
> conflict and the image is corrupted where the ECC is computed.
>
> It is not a really good idea to fix in this way where to compute the
> ECC. Should be not better to put it in the CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_ADDR area ?
>
> Best regards,
> Stefano Babic
>

Hmm. This is from the former nand_spl.

Why not use malloc for this? Thanks to changes in the FAT driver we now 
have it in the SPL.

I don't see a reason to have this in SRAM when SDRAM is available.

Regards
Simon