On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:51:43AM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:22 AM Fabio Estevam <feste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Should we fix spl_end like this?
>
> Looking at u-boot-spl.map:
>
> 0x0000000000912264 0x0 common/spl/spl.o
> 0x0000000000912264 . = ALIGN (0x4)
> 0x0000000000912264 __image_copy_end = .
>
> .end
> *(.__end)
> 0x0000000000912264 _image_binary_end = .
>
> __image_copy_end is the last address of the SPL inside the internal RAM.
>
> So shouldn't we do this instead?
>
> --- a/common/spl/spl_legacy.c
> +++ b/common/spl/spl_legacy.c
> @@ -19,9 +19,17 @@
> static void spl_parse_legacy_validate(uintptr_t start, uintptr_t size)
> {
> uintptr_t spl_start = (uintptr_t)_start;
> - uintptr_t spl_end = (uintptr_t)__bss_end;
> + uintptr_t spl_end = (uintptr_t)__image_copy_end;
> uintptr_t end = start + size;I think this breaks x86, without updating their linker scripts at least. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
