[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/6] rockchip: back-to-bootrom: replace assembly-implementation with C-code

[Dr. Philipp Tomsich]

> On 21 Sep 2017, at 11:09, Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2017, 10:19:23 CEST schrieb Philipp Tomsich:
>> 
>> Recent discussions confirmed (what the code always assumed): the
>> Rockchip BROM always enters U-Boot with the stack-pointer valid
>> (i.e. the U-Boot startup code is running off the BROM stack).
>> 
>> We can thus replace the back-to-bootrom code (i.e. both the
>> save_boot_params and back_to_bootrom implementations) using C-code
>> based on setjmp/longjmp.  The new implementation is already structured
>> to allow an easy drop-in of Andy's changes to enter download-mode when
>> returning to the BROM.
>> 
>> This turned out to require a some tweaking to system.h (making sure
>> that the prototype for save_boot_params_ret is visible for A64)and
>> start.S (so binutils knows that this is a possible function entry and
>> it can correctly insert A32-to-Thumb transitions) and taking the axe
>> to setjmp.h (which created quite a few issues with it not expecting
>> A32/T32/Thumb call-sites and some fragility from GCC being smart about
>> the clobber-list of the inline assembly... which led to r9 not being
>> saved or restored).
> 
> This is missing information on dependant series. Using the u-boot-rockchip
> repository which is at
> 782088de7be7 ("rockchip: imply ADC and SARADC_ROCKCHIP on supported SoCs")
> 
> patches 1-3 apply, but patch 4 fails to apply as I seem to be missing some
> dependencies.
> 
> And the u-boot mailinglist seems to be configured very strangely, as it
> seems to rip apart patch-series only sending me some parts.
> 
> So far I can at least say, that the u-boot-rockchip repo at the above
> commit still boots. Could you please point me to mbox versions
> of needed base patches?

I seem to be suffering from “too many trees” syndrome.
The next reroll will be a clean one again.

Thanks,
Philipp.