[U-Boot] [PATCH] arm64 :show_regs: show the address before relocation

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:40:39AM +0000, Karl Beldan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 22 January 2018 at 12:01, Karl Beldan <karl.beldan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:08:08AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> > After relocation, when error happends, it is hard to track
> >> > ELR and LR with asm file objdumped from elf file.
> >> >
> >> > So subtract the gd->reloc_off the reflect the compliation address.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c b/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c
> >> > index 7c9cfce69f..cbcfeec2b0 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c
> >> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> >> >  #include <linux/compiler.h>
> >> >  #include <efi_loader.h>
> >> >
> >> > +DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
> >> >
> >> >  int interrupt_init(void)
> >> >  {
> >> > @@ -29,8 +30,13 @@ void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> >  {
> >> >       int i;
> >> >
> >> > -     printf("ELR:     %lx\n", regs->elr);
> >> > -     printf("LR:      %lx\n", regs->regs[30]);
> >> > +     if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_RELOC) {
> >> > +             printf("ELR:     %lx\n", regs->elr - gd->reloc_off);
> >> > +             printf("LR:      %lx\n", regs->regs[30] - gd->reloc_off);
> >> > +     } else {
> >> > +             printf("ELR:     %lx\n", regs->elr);
> >> > +             printf("LR:      %lx\n", regs->regs[30]);
> >> > +     }
> >> >       for (i = 0; i < 29; i += 2)
> >> >               printf("x%-2d: %016lx x%-2d: %016lx\n",
> >> >                      i, regs->regs[i], i+1, regs->regs[i+1]);
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It is useful to show the relocated address, the kind of local mods I too
> >> have had for a while.
> >> But here you dropped the hw register values altogether, instead of
> >> displaying both, which I guess I am not the only one to not be happy
> >> about.
> >
> > Yes I agree that we should have both. Do you think you could do a patch?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Peng did reply with a patch[1], I was bugged by the formatting but no
> follow-up ensued, so unclear whether it felt annoying on anybody's side.
> Anyways sure, if the thread stalls for a few more days, I'll make sure
> to send a patch.
> 
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=151674072412633&w=2

For the record, I took your objects as "Changes still Requested" to the
patch and I think/hope in patchwork I marked it as such.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20180205/3346129a/attachment.sig>