On 11/03/2016 10:51 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi,
On 03/11/16 09:34, Hans de Goede wrote:
<Adding Peter Robinson to the Cc to see how much he will
object my packaging ideas>
Hi,
First of all cool stuff! Thank you Andre and all others
involved for making this happen.
On 03-11-16 09:49, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 11/03/2016 02:36 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi,
this is my first take on the SPL support for the Allwinner A64 SoC.
The actual meat - the DRAM initialization code - has been provided
by Jens - many thanks for that!
The rest of the patches mostly deal with the 32-bit/64-bit switch.
While it is possible and seems natural to let the SPL also run in
64-bit,
this creates a really large binary (32600 Bytes in my case). With some
hacks (plus some fixes to make the SPL 64-bit safe) I got this to work,
So how about we merge the 64bit version first (since that's *way*
easier to compile for everyone) and then consider the move to 32bit
afterwards? I don't even want to start to imagine how to squeeze a
32bit SPL build into the build process for our U-Boot binaries.
but any addition will probably break it and exceed the 32KB limit that
the BROM imposes. Debug is the first obvious victim here.
Do you have some section size comparisons between the two?
Later down in the mail Andre says that in 32 bit (thumb) mode
the size goes down to 20KB which gives us a lot more head-room
then the 32600 out of 32768 bytes available for the 64 bit
version.
With that said I agree with you (Alex) that having a 32 bit
SPL + 64 bit u-boot proper is worry-some from a distro pov.
What's even nastier is the requirement of a cross compiler even for a
native build. Do Fedora and Suse offer packaged cross-compilers for the
other ARM bitness, respectively?
Andreas Faerber was working on cross compilers in openSUSE, but I don't
think they're part of the distribution yet.
Alex
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
