Hello Wolfgang, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > > In message <4ccef2e4.5080...@free.fr> you wrote: >> Also, I understand why the second RFC change I did was harmful to tx25. >> Contrary to u-boot itself, u-boot-spl is not compiled to be position >> independent; it actually loads at a given address then copies itself, >> without relocating, to its home location. > > It copies _itself_? Not the U-Boot payload? > > Heiko, is this intentional? Do we really first load the whole image, > then copy the U-Boot payload to some other address, then relocate it > to yet another one?
- preloader copies first page of nand (nand_spl code) to 0xbb000000 (some cpu internal mem) and jumps to this address - nand_spl does lowlevelinit, relocate itself to TEXT_BASE (nand_spl code) - from there, it copies u-boot code from nand to CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST and jumps to CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_START - u-boot run into board_init_f, calculates new relocation address and relocates ... But there is a possibility to prevent one copy, if TEXT_BASE = relocation address = CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST In this case nand_spl code copies u-boot from nand to CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_DST. As this is equal to the relocation address, no need to copy code in relocate_code(). But as codesize changes (and with it relocation address) this is not a perfect solution. bye, Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot