On Fri, 27 Sept 2024 at 00:53, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Ilias, > > On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 15:40, Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 15:48, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Sept 2024 at 11:49, Ilias Apalodimas > > > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 10:25, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Separate BSS is current mandatory on armv8 but this is not useful for > > > > > early boot phases. Add support for the combined BSS. > > > > > > > > > > Use an #ifdef to avoid using CONFIG_SPL_BSS_START_ADDR which is not > > > > > valid in this case. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds > > > > > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds > > > > > index 215cedd69a8..fed69644b55 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds > > > > > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > > > > > > > > > > MEMORY { .sram : ORIGIN = IMAGE_TEXT_BASE, > > > > > LENGTH = IMAGE_MAX_SIZE } > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_SEPARATE_BSS > > > > > MEMORY { .sdram : ORIGIN = CONFIG_SPL_BSS_START_ADDR, > > > > > LENGTH = CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE } > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > > > OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-littleaarch64", "elf64-littleaarch64", > > > > > "elf64-littleaarch64") > > > > > OUTPUT_ARCH(aarch64) > > > > > @@ -56,12 +58,22 @@ SECTIONS > > > > > _end = .; > > > > > _image_binary_end = .; > > > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_SEPARATE_BSS > > > > > .bss : { > > > > > __bss_start = .; > > > > > *(.bss*) > > > > > . = ALIGN(8); > > > > > __bss_end = .; > > > > > } >.sdram > > > > > +#else > > > > > + .bss (NOLOAD) : { > > > > > + __bss_start = .; > > > > > + *(.bss*) > > > > > + . = ALIGN(8); > > > > > + __bss_end = .; > > > > > + } >.sram > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > This is still going to be separate. The only difference isn't that > > > > it's not loaded. If you want to combine it with a region, you got to > > > > do something similar to what we have in armv7, where it overlaps with > > > > rel.dyn > > > > > > I don't mind about combining it with a region, But SPL doesn't have > > > relocation data, right? > > > > > > My meaning of 'separate' is as described in CONFIG_SPL_SEPARATE_BSS, > > > i.e. being kept in SDRAM. > > > > Ok, is the NOLOAD really needed? I would prefer the ifdef around > > .sdram/.sram > > > > In any case > > Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> > > Oh I see... well the NOLOAD stops it writing zero data into the image, > as I understand it.
It doesn't load that section into memory. > Actually I wonder why we don't have NOLOAD for the > separate-BSS case? If we can use NOLOAD for both then we can indeed > shrink the #ifdef If .bss is zero'ed out properly (which I think it is) we can use NOLOAD on both Thanks /Ilias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > /Ilias > > > > > + __bss_size = __bss_end - __bss_start; > > > > > > > > > > /DISCARD/ : { *(.rela*) } > > > > > /DISCARD/ : { *(.dynsym) } > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.43.0 > > > > > > > Regards, > Simon