[U-Boot] [PATCH 04/07] fdtdec: allow board to provide fdt for CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE

[Peter Robinson]

>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Jorge Ramirez
>>> <jorge.ramirez-ortiz at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/09/2018 04:37 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_SEPARATE)
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * For CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE, the board may optionally implement this to
>>>> + * provide and/or fixup the fdt.
>>>> + */
>>>> +__weak void *board_fdt_blob_setup(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       void *fdt_blob = NULL;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>>>> +       /* FDT is at end of BSS unless it is in a different memory
>>>> region */
>>>> +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_SEPARATE_BSS))
>>>> +               fdt_blob = (ulong *)&_image_binary_end;
>>>> +       else
>>>> +               fdt_blob = (ulong *)&__bss_end;
>>>> +#else
>>>> +       /* FDT is at end of image */
>>>> +       fdt_blob = (ulong *)&_end;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +       return fdt_blob;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> For some reason now with 2018.01 I'm getting the following error when
>>>> building on Fedora 28
>>>>
>>>> /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2018.01/lib/fdtdec.c:1312: undefined
>>>> reference to `board_fdt_blob_setup'
>>>>
>>>> /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2018.01/lib/fdtdec.c:1312:(.text.fdtdec_setup+0x10):
>>>> relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol
>>>> `board_fdt_blob_setup'
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to have a further look into it from my side (could be tweaks
>>>> to compile flags etc) but just FYI.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> is this after a clean build?
>>>
>>> Yep, the Fedora build process starts from clean for each build.
>>
>>
>> if you can, could you try pulling https://github.com/ldts/u-boot
>> (patches/v1) ?
>> it should be the exact same tree after all patches have been applied (git
>> am ...)
>
>
>
> I have reapplied the patches on top of master [1], tested db410c and db820
> and pushed the tree to https://github.com/ldts/u-boot (patches/v1)
> will post the three sets again now using my gmail address but AFAICS there
> are no issues. I am a bit surprised you are seeing those (maybe you have
> some different configs and if so, could you share them so I test on my side?

The 820c patch set applies cleanly from that branch, I'm just running
the build now to see where it fails. The  upstream config that failed
with the fdtdec patch was firefly-rk3399_defconfig

I'll update this once the process finishes.