On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:20 PM Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:00 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:50:36AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:29 AM Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:11:36AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:42 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:07:45PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:24 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@ti.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 01:17:12AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM Denys Dmytriyenko > > > > > > > > > <de...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been reports recently that > > > > > > > > > > am335x_beaglebone_config generates bad SPL. > > > > > > > > > > Until that is debugged and fixed, use generic > > > > > > > > > > am335x_evm_config that covers all > > > > > > > > > > AM335x platforms, including BeagleBone variants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it fails to link > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | arm-yoe-linux-gnueabi-ld.bfd: u-boot-spl section `.rodata' > > > > > > > > > will not > > > > > > > > > fit in region `.sram' > > > > > > > > > | arm-yoe-linux-gnueabi-ld.bfd: region `.sram' overflowed by > > > > > > > > > 5772 bytes > > > > > > > > > | make[2]: *** > > > > > > > > > [/mnt/a/yoe/build/tmp/work/beaglebone-yoe-linux-gnueabi/u-boot-ti-staging/2018.01+gitAUTOINC+2cc52408bf-r24/git/scripts/Makefile.spl:349: > > > > > > > > > spl/u-boot-spl] Error 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, just built u-boot-ti-staging with gcc7 and gcc8 from > > > > > > > > oe-core, as well as > > > > > > > > Linaro gcc7 - no problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My distro inherits poky policies, and on master it now inherits > > > > > > > hardening policies ( security flags) by defaults > > > > > > > do you happen to test poky ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we want to take a look at which of the security flags really > > > > > > make sense to use in this context. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there could be more to it, since the distro uses thumb2 ISA by > > > > > default, I am not sure > > > > > if u-boot overrides that and builds using arm mode ISA always but > > > > > something to consider, I saw several reports about u-boot overflowing > > > > > sram sections and most of > > > > > the solutions were "oh it works for me" or at the best your toolchain > > > > > is different then mine. here is mine use it and move on. > > > > > > > > Khem, > > > > > > > > Well, FWIW, Tom and I are very familiar with this issue. As a matter of > > > > fact, > > > > I first encountered it almost 2 years ago and had to prove there's such > > > > an > > > > issue, because everyone was saying it works for them, something must be > > > > wrong > > > > with my OE builds... :) > > > > > > > > While .sram region is very limited, the issue is exacerbated by the > > > > fact that > > > > all debug symbols from macros like __FILE__ are ended up in that > > > > section as > > > > well. So, the longer your build path, the larger the section becomes. > > > > Once I > > > > had instructions to reproduce the failure here internally with a series > > > > of > > > > long-named nested directories like aaaaaa and bbbbbb, Nishanth started > > > > this > > > > thread on U-boot mailing list: > > > > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-March/285031.html > > > > > > > > We've had the corresponding bug open internally all this time, while > > > > adding > > > > workarounds to limit .sram section size by other means, like disabling > > > > some > > > > options to reduce the code size. Your patch is one of those > > > > workarounds... > > > > > > > > But we've been patiently waiting for the following feature to come into > > > > gcc to > > > > fix the issue properly: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268 > > > > > > > > Since it's now part of gcc8, we should be able to use it. Not sure how > > > > to keep > > > > gcc7 backward compatibility though... > > > > > > dumping absolute file name strings into SPL seems a waste of space to > > > me, but I will leave that out for now. Moreover it exposes build paths > > > into binaries that user may not be interested to share > > > > > > -ffile-prefix-map has been in OE toolchains since gcc6 and I think we > > > are already using it for kernel builds. We can probably enhance uboot > > > recipes in OE-Core to > > > use this option if compiler supports it. That solves my problem. > > > > Yeah, extending that from kernel to u-boot would be nice. > > Unfortunately, our products use Linaro gcc7 on rocko for now. Planning to > > migrate to gcc8 on thud soon... > > we can check for the option before using it so atleast it will not > break older toolchains more than what they are already broken.
I added -ffile-prefix-map locally just with this option added it did not fix the problem. -- _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list meta-ti@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
