[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 3/6] cm-t35: add EEPROM module and pass Linux a serial number

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Igor,

Le 07/02/2012 09:01, Igor Grinberg a écrit :
> Hi Albert,
>
> On 02/07/12 00:56, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Le 09/01/2012 09:30, Nikita Kiryanov a écrit :
>>> On 01/05/2012 04:56 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>>> Dear Igor Grinberg,
>>>>
>>>> In message<1325764937-7342-1-git-send-email-grinberg at compulab.co.il>
>>>> you wrote:
>>>>> From: Nikita Kiryanov<nikita at compulab.co.il>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add board specific EEPROM handling module,
>>>>> read the serial number from the EEPROM and pass it to Linux.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> * Fix strange linker warning: ".bss section overlaps previous sections"
>>>>> by changing the type of the eeprom_layout static global variable to int
>>>>> (probably this is a compiler bug).
>>>> Probably it is now. Did you inspect the linke rmap?
>>>
>>> u-boot.map shows the bss section aligning perfectly with the start of
>>> rel.dyn.
>>>
>>> The difference between the original "working" version and the version
>>> with the warning
>>> was an additional byte added by uchar eeprom_layout to the size of
>>> libcm_t35.o.
>>> This shouldn't be a problem because the bss section is followed by an
>>> ALIGN(4), but
>>> we decided to try changing eeprom_layout to an int and the problem went
>>> away.
>>> When we tried to define 4 uchars the problem reappeared.
>>>
>>> This suggests that this might be a compiler bug.
>>>
>>> There's been some discussion about this in the following threads:
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/114646
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/90723
>>> and we're not aware of any fix to the issue.
>>
>> Which prompted me to test --no-check-sections with CS 2009q1.
>> Adding it to LDFLAGS_u-boot does reduce the annoyance from errors to a warning,
>> but there is no way to completely make it disappear.
>
> So the conclusion is still a tool chain bug, right?
> Probably it doesn't hurt besides the annoying warning.

Sorry for being slow.

Yes, it seems to be a toolchain bug and limited to a spurious warning. 
However, spurious warnings are always a pain when doing a MAKEALL arm, 
because the board is listed among the unclean and failed builds and then 
one must go through these individually and remember that this specific 
warning is both unimportant and unavoidable.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.