[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] ARM: fix u-boot.lds for -ffunction-sections/-fdata-sections

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:17:45 -0600, Stephen Warren
<swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:

> On 10/17/2012 05:58 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> >> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> When -ffunction-sections or -fdata-section are used, symbols are placed
> >> into sections such as .data.eserial1_device and .bss.serial_current.
> >> Update the linker script to explicitly include these. Without this
> >> change (at least with my gcc-4.5.3 built using crosstool-ng), I see that
> >> the sections do end up being included, but __bss_end__ gets set to the
> >> same value as __bss_start.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
> >> ---
> >> This series fixes an SPL size overflow problem on Tegra. Tom Warren is
> >> out on vacation until Oct 25th, so he certainly won't be able to review
> >> this. Perhaps it could be applied directly to the ARM tree if enough
> >> Tegra people ack the series?
> >>
> >> Note that this series is not enough to make Tegra support work; either
> >> you must hack ./arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra-common/spl.c to call
> >> serial_initialize() right before serial_init() in preloader_console_init()
> >> or wait for Allen Martin to rework Tegra's SPL support using the common
> >> SPL code.
> > 
> > Are you going to submit a patch to enable function-sections, or is
> > that a separate discussion?
> 
> For the SPL on Tegra, those flags were already on; this patch fixes a
> bug rather than prepares for new functionality.
> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds
> 
> >> -       .u_boot_cmd : { *(.u_boot_cmd) }
> >> +       .u_boot_cmd : { *(.u_boot_cmd*) }
> > 
> > I don't think this line is needed?
> > 
> ...
> >> -               *(.dynsym)
> >> +               *(.dynsym*)
> > 
> > Nor this one?
> 
> Possibly. I changed all the section names to be future-proof. Perhaps a
> more targeted patch is warranted.

Has this been (at least build-)tested on all boards which have
-ffunction-sections or -fdata-sections?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.