Hi Albert,
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
albert.u.b...@aribaud.net wrote:
Hi Simon,
Le 23/09/2011 18:04, Simon Glass a écrit :
Are you looking for CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION? I think Anthony is
only fixing couple of issues uncovered by the original 'skip
relocation'
Le 30/09/2011 09:21, Simon Schwarz a écrit :
On 09/29/2011 06:14 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
[SNIP]
Simon, who has just finished his bachelor thesis did this test for me
(thanks to this way ...).
It seems using more register for ldmia/stmia does _not_ improve the copy
time that much. Simon
Hi Simon,
Le 23/09/2011 18:04, Simon Glass a écrit :
Are you looking for CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION? I think Anthony is
only fixing couple of issues uncovered by the original 'skip
relocation' patch but I don't think CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION
itself is getting accepted.
I see.
On 09/29/2011 06:14 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
[SNIP]
Simon, who has just finished his bachelor thesis did this test for me (thanks
to this way ...).
It seems using more register for ldmia/stmia does _not_ improve the copy
time that much. Simon measured 10.8 ms for r9-r10 and 10.65 ms for
Dear Albert,
Am 21.09.2011 um 14:31 schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011
Hi Aneesh,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 03:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, GROYER, Anthony
anthony.gro...@airliquide.com wrote:
Hello,
I came back on a discussion started
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 16:23:56 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 14:31, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011
-Message d'origine-
De : u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-
boun...@lists.denx.de] De la part de Albert ARIBAUD
Envoyé : mardi 20 septembre 2011 21:14
À : u-boot@lists.denx.de
Objet : Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] arm: provide a CONFIG flag for
disabling relocation
Le 20/09
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
In message
bc0a2f434d4f39448d24a68ea6effb9f0194d...@eu-fr-exbe07.eu.corp.airliquide.com
you wrote:
What is the difference between _start and _TEXT_BASE ? I do not see any
differences and the former relocation offset calculation was using _TEXT_BASE.
The former is the
Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
However, since start.S has a code path to handle the non-relocating
case, this path ought to be bug-free. But then, I want it to be
consistent: if the relocation offset is computed in r9, then testing
whether relocation is needed would be done on
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
snip
3) replace use of r9-r10 with e.g. r10-r11 in the copy loop, to preserve
r9 during relocation.
If one is changing this place I would like to
Le 21/09/2011 12:45, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
In
messagebc0a2f434d4f39448d24a68ea6effb9f0194d...@eu-fr-exbe07.eu.corp.airliquide.com
you wrote:
What is the difference between _start and _TEXT_BASE ? I do not see any
differences and the former relocation offset
Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
snip
3) replace use of r9-r10 with e.g. r10-r11 in the copy loop, to preserve
r9 during relocation.
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER, Anthony a écrit :
snip
3) replace use of r9-r10
Hi Simon,
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 03:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, GROYER, Anthony
anthony.gro...@airliquide.com wrote:
Hello,
I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
The use of the initial patches for the
Le 21/09/2011 14:31, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 14:03:09 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 13:20, Andreas Bießmann a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
Dear Albert,
Am Mi 21 Sep 2011 12:51:33 CEST schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 21/09/2011 11:29, GROYER,
Hello,
I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION features
has revealed two issues.
First issue: the calculation of the relocation offset was done only if the
relocation is actually done. So we could reach a point
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
In message
bc0a2f434d4f39448d24a68ea6effb9f0194d...@eu-fr-exbe07.eu.corp.airliquide.com
you wrote:
The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION featu
res has revealed two issues.
Could you please restict your line length to some 70 characters
Le 20/09/2011 20:09, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
Dear GROYER, Anthony,
In
messagebc0a2f434d4f39448d24a68ea6effb9f0194d...@eu-fr-exbe07.eu.corp.airliquide.com
you wrote:
The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION featu
res has revealed two issues.
Could you
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, GROYER, Anthony
anthony.gro...@airliquide.com wrote:
Hello,
I came back on a discussion started on April 2011.
The use of the initial patches for the CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_ARM_RELOCATION
features has revealed two issues.
First issue: the
Hi Simon, Wolfgang,
On Thursday 21 April 2011 12:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.arib...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
Another problem I have with relocation is that it makes debugging with
JTAG debugers more
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Aneesh V ane...@ti.com wrote:
Hi Simon, Wolfgang,
On Thursday 21 April 2011 12:04 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.arib...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
Another problem I have with
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.arib...@free.fr wrote:
Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
Another problem I have with relocation is that it makes debugging with
JTAG debugers more difficult. The addresses of symbols in the ELF
target are no longer valid. Of
Relocation may not be needed and desirable in many cases:
* For many boards the amount of SDRAM is fixed.
So relocation is not needed.
* Relocation adds un-necessary additional overhead when
it's not needed. This delay is singificant on slower
platforms such as FPGA
* Many boards have
Forgot to mention that this patch depends on my previous series for MMC
spl:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/96352
This one was anyway intended to initiate the discussion. If approved,
I shall create a cleaner patch.
On Friday 25 March 2011 06:42 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
Dear Aneesh V,
In message 1301058732-30898-1-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com you wrote:
Relocation may not be needed and desirable in many cases:
* For many boards the amount of SDRAM is fixed.
So relocation is not needed.
This is plain wrong. This has been explained a couple of times
Dear Wolfgang,
On Friday 25 March 2011 07:42 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Aneesh V,
In message1301058732-30898-1-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com you wrote:
Relocation may not be needed and desirable in many cases:
* For many boards the amount of SDRAM is fixed.
So relocation is not
Le 25/03/2011 17:12, Aneesh V a écrit :
Another problem I have with relocation is that it makes debugging with
JTAG debugers more difficult. The addresses of symbols in the ELF
target are no longer valid. Of course, you can load the symbols at an
offset from the original location. But one has
28 matches
Mail list logo
