On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:50 PM, York Sun wrote: > Wolfgang, > > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 11:12 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear York Sun, >> >> In message <1291863340-4354-2-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you >> wrote: >>> To temporarily fix buffer issue when running at flash, use bigger buffer >>> to push down the stack deeper. >> >> What does this mean? "temporarily fix" ? Do you have another, >> permanent fix in the works > > I am not happy with this "fix" either. Kumar changed the code to use > deeper buffer as a workaround. This is the only way I can make it work > following him. > >> >>> Signed-off-by: York Sun <york...@freescale.com> >>> --- >>> common/hwconfig.c | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/common/hwconfig.c b/common/hwconfig.c >>> index 3c9759f..1b33d95 100644 >>> --- a/common/hwconfig.c >>> +++ b/common/hwconfig.c >>> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ next: >>> const char *cpu_hwconfig __attribute__((weak)); >>> const char *board_hwconfig __attribute__((weak)); >>> >>> -#define HWCONFIG_PRE_RELOC_BUF_SIZE 128 >>> +#define HWCONFIG_PRE_RELOC_BUF_SIZE 256 >> >> Is this really, really necessary? Memory is a scarce resource >> pre relocation. > > Let me work with Kumar on this.
Got any ideas? I'm not a fan but not sure what else we can do. - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot