On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:40:39AM +0000, Karl Beldan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 22 January 2018 at 12:01, Karl Beldan <karl.bel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:08:08AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > >> > After relocation, when error happends, it is hard to track > >> > ELR and LR with asm file objdumped from elf file. > >> > > >> > So subtract the gd->reloc_off the reflect the compliation address. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > >> > --- > >> > arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c | 10 ++++++++-- > >> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c b/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c > >> > index 7c9cfce69f..cbcfeec2b0 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c > >> > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/interrupts_64.c > >> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > >> > #include <linux/compiler.h> > >> > #include <efi_loader.h> > >> > > >> > +DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > >> > > >> > int interrupt_init(void) > >> > { > >> > @@ -29,8 +30,13 @@ void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs) > >> > { > >> > int i; > >> > > >> > - printf("ELR: %lx\n", regs->elr); > >> > - printf("LR: %lx\n", regs->regs[30]); > >> > + if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_RELOC) { > >> > + printf("ELR: %lx\n", regs->elr - gd->reloc_off); > >> > + printf("LR: %lx\n", regs->regs[30] - gd->reloc_off); > >> > + } else { > >> > + printf("ELR: %lx\n", regs->elr); > >> > + printf("LR: %lx\n", regs->regs[30]); > >> > + } > >> > for (i = 0; i < 29; i += 2) > >> > printf("x%-2d: %016lx x%-2d: %016lx\n", > >> > i, regs->regs[i], i+1, regs->regs[i+1]); > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It is useful to show the relocated address, the kind of local mods I too > >> have had for a while. > >> But here you dropped the hw register values altogether, instead of > >> displaying both, which I guess I am not the only one to not be happy > >> about. > > > > Yes I agree that we should have both. Do you think you could do a patch? > > Hi, > > Peng did reply with a patch[1], I was bugged by the formatting but no > follow-up ensued, so unclear whether it felt annoying on anybody's side. > Anyways sure, if the thread stalls for a few more days, I'll make sure > to send a patch. > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=151674072412633&w=2
For the record, I took your objects as "Changes still Requested" to the patch and I think/hope in patchwork I marked it as such. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot