[U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: Add option to disable code relocation

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 06 February 2012 09:49:27 Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> > On 02/06/2012 06:51 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> Graeme Russ wrote:
> >>> I think the immediate focus should be on centralising the init sequence
> >>> processing into /common/init.c and then bringing the new'initcall'
> >>> architecture online
> >> 
> >> Agreed.
> >> 
> >>> Once these have been done, any board can just specific:
> >>> 
> >>> SKIP_INIT(RELOC)
> >> 
> >> I will probably object to his, too - for the same reasons.
> > 
> > Considering this is a 'free' artefact of how the init sequence functions,
> > and that it is board specific and totally non-invasive for anyone else
> > (i.e. no ugly ifdef's anywhere else in the code) I'm surprised you would
> > object...
> 
> To pick up Wolfgang's argument, but why do we want to skip relocation?
>  You can debug through it, it's documented (official wiki has GDB,
> over in TI-land, the wiki page for CCS has the bits for doing it in
> that Eclipse-based env, other debuggers I'm sure have a similar "now
> add symbols at this offset from link" option) and the end result makes
> it very easy for end-users to break their world (default kernel load
> addrs being where U-Boot would be).

if you have a static platform which never changes, isn't the relocation a 
waste of time ?  i can understand wanting relocation by default for platforms 
where memory sizes are unknown, but it's not uncommon for people to have fixed 
hardware when they deploy.

although, with SPL picking up direct-to-Linux booting, this argument might not 
matter that much anymore.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20120206/cf2e515c/attachment.pgp>