[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] RFC: create u-boot-common.lds

[Troy Kisky]

On 2/7/2012 5:39 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Troy,
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Troy Kisky
> <troy.kisky at boundarydevices.com>  wrote:
>> This makes adding linker defined tables easier
>> as only 1 lds file (include/u-boot-common.lds)
>> will need to be touched instead of 193 files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky<troy.kisky at boundarydevices.com>
>> ---
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/u-boot.lds
>> index d1e2851..fe07097 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/u-boot.lds
>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/u-boot.lds
>> @@ -52,12 +52,7 @@ SECTIONS
>>                 *(.data)
>>         }
>>
>> -       . = ALIGN(4);
>> -
>> -       . = .;
>> -       __u_boot_cmd_start = .;
>> -       .u_boot_cmd : { *(.u_boot_cmd) }
>> -       __u_boot_cmd_end = .;
>> +#include<u-boot-common.lds>
>>
>>         . = ALIGN(4);
>>
> Ick! A #define in the middle of a file :(
>
> I would rather see the code block you are replacing #defined in
> include/u-boot-common.lds.h and then use the define at the desired
> location in the arch lds file. This will allow multiple 'functional
> linker blocks' to be defined that the acrch scripts can arrange as they
> see fit.
>
> Also, ALIGN(4) may not always be a given, so maybe we should pass that in
> as a parameter?
>
> Hmmm....maybe something like (most likely not syntactically correct):
>
> #define U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(section, alignment) \
> 	. = ALIGN(alignment); \
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SYMBOL(section ## _start) = .;
> 	. ## section : { KEEP(*(. ## section)) }
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SYMBOL(section ## _end) = .;
>
>
> So we can simply, in the arch lds:
>
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(text, 4)
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(u_boot_cmd, 4)
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(rodata, 4)
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(data, 4)
> 	U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(dynsym, 4)
>
> Regards,
>
> Graeme
>
That works fine for existing sections.. i.e

U_BOOT_LDS_SECTION(u_boot_cmd, 4)


but what about the next patch in the series?
Do you want me to change all lds files again?

I hope you have a better idea for how to handle patch 2/2.

Thanks for the feedback.

Troy