[U-Boot] [PATCH V4 2/2] mcx: support for HTKW mcx board

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ilya Yanok <yanok at emcraft.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 13.12.2011 23:30, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE           0x80008000
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR        0x300 /* address 0x60000 */
>>>>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_MMC_SD_FAT_BOOT_PARTITION   1
>>>>> +#define CONFIG_SPL_FAT_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME       "u-boot.img"
>>>>
>>>> You're able to have CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE that low and not have the
>>>> corruption problem devkit8000 had?
>>>
>>> No, I can't see any problems. I have to say I can't do _real_ MMC boot,
>>> as my board lacks the required jumper, so I'm testing it but starting
>>> SPL from NAND, rewriting omap3_boot_device to be MMC with BDI and
>>> running it further. It reads u-boot.img from MMC and starts it without
>>> any problem.
>>
>> Well, is it just your board that's missing the jumper, or the MCX HTWK
>> lacks the jumper?  If the latter, just drop the MMC bits out :)
>
> I can't ;) this was an explicit requirement.
>
> As for the devkit8000 boot problem, I have BSS set up close to the top
> of the RAM. Probably that's the reason I don't see any problems.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't recall why I had moved BSS... It clashed with
> something but I don't remember the details.

OK.  I _want_ to put this into my /next branch (and thanks for working
over all of the issues that've popped up since you first posted the
series) but I also would like to try and keep differences for
difference sake out of the SPL implementations since I know other
folks are starting to look at the code and port their custom boards or
in-tree boards and I'm sure they'll go "why does X place things here
and Y there and my board isn't working?".  So if you can try and
recall what the clash was (and we can comment it, or maybe it was the
FAT thing :)) I'd really appreciate it.

-- 
Tom