> On 21 Sep 2017, at 11:09, Heiko Stuebner <he...@sntech.de> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2017, 10:19:23 CEST schrieb Philipp Tomsich: >> >> Recent discussions confirmed (what the code always assumed): the >> Rockchip BROM always enters U-Boot with the stack-pointer valid >> (i.e. the U-Boot startup code is running off the BROM stack). >> >> We can thus replace the back-to-bootrom code (i.e. both the >> save_boot_params and back_to_bootrom implementations) using C-code >> based on setjmp/longjmp. The new implementation is already structured >> to allow an easy drop-in of Andy's changes to enter download-mode when >> returning to the BROM. >> >> This turned out to require a some tweaking to system.h (making sure >> that the prototype for save_boot_params_ret is visible for A64)and >> start.S (so binutils knows that this is a possible function entry and >> it can correctly insert A32-to-Thumb transitions) and taking the axe >> to setjmp.h (which created quite a few issues with it not expecting >> A32/T32/Thumb call-sites and some fragility from GCC being smart about >> the clobber-list of the inline assembly... which led to r9 not being >> saved or restored). > > This is missing information on dependant series. Using the u-boot-rockchip > repository which is at > 782088de7be7 ("rockchip: imply ADC and SARADC_ROCKCHIP on supported SoCs") > > patches 1-3 apply, but patch 4 fails to apply as I seem to be missing some > dependencies. > > And the u-boot mailinglist seems to be configured very strangely, as it > seems to rip apart patch-series only sending me some parts. > > So far I can at least say, that the u-boot-rockchip repo at the above > commit still boots. Could you please point me to mbox versions > of needed base patches?
I seem to be suffering from “too many trees” syndrome. The next reroll will be a clean one again. Thanks, Philipp. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot