Hi Sam On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 03:47, Sam Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 9:55 PM Sam Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Long time no see, U-Boot folks! > > > > This patchset consists of various bug fixes and correctness improvements > > that > > I discovered while attempting to add first-class LLVM support to the build > > system. These patches are NOT related to LLVM support directly; rather, they > > address existing issues that should be resolved regardless of future > > changes. > > For the most part, the patches are mutually independent and can be reviewed > > and > > applied separately. If any patch is not suitable for merging now, feel free > > to > > skip it: I will incorporate feedback and revisit those changes as part of > > the > > upcoming LLVM support patchset. I'd like this patchset to be evaluated on > > its > > own merits, based on the current state of the code, without consideration > > for > > future LLVM support. > > > > Note that the issues addressed in this patchset do not occur when U-Boot is > > built using the GCC/GNU toolchain. These bugs seem to be specific to builds > > using other toolchains, like LLVM, and do not appear to affect users > > relying on > > GCC/GNU. Therefore, I see no need to rush these changes into the stable > > branch. > > > > Again, these patches are mostly independent/reorderable... > > ...except that: "arm: Add aligned-memory aliases to eabi_compat" > > ...depends on: "arm: Add __aeabi_memclr in eabi_compat" > > > > Warm regards, > > Sam > > Hi Tom, > > I noticed that all patches in this series have been marked 'Changes > Requested' on Patchwork. While some patches do need changes, this > series was intended as a set of independent submissions: each patch > can be accepted, rejected, or reordered without affecting the others. > Would it be possible to reconsider the remaining patches for review > without resending the series? > > I'd like to withdraw the following patches: > > - [06/17] arm: Use -mstrict-align when the MMU is off (Incorrect approach) > - [11/17] makefile: Fix symbol typo in binary_size_check (Will follow > Simon's suggestion for a more comprehensive fix across architectures > in a future submission) > > The feedback I've received so far was mostly requests for > clarification, which I believe I've addressed in my replies. Please > let me know if anything remains unclear or if further adjustments are > needed. > > Thank you so much for your time!
I am currently on a trip. I had a quick look at the patches and looked reasonable. I'll have a closer look next week Cheers /Ilias > > Cheers, > Sam > > > > > Sam Edwards (17): > > arm: Remove stray .mmutable reference in linker script > > arm: Exclude eabi_compat from LTO > > arm: Add __aeabi_memclr in eabi_compat > > arm: Add aligned-memory aliases to eabi_compat > > arm: Discard unwanted sections in linker script > > arm: Use -mstrict-align when the MMU is off > > arm: Replace 'adrl' in EFI crt0 > > x86: Fix call64's section flags > > spl: riscv: opensbi: Error on misaligned FDT > > spl: Align FDT load address > > makefile: Fix symbol typo in binary_size_check > > makefile: Avoid objcopy --gap-fill for .hex/.srec > > makefile: Add `norelro` linker option > > makefile: Add READELF command variable > > efi_loader: Remove ENTRY(_start) from linker script > > efi_loader: Move .dynamic out of .text in EFI > > scripts/Makefile.lib: efi: Preserve the .dynstr section as well > > > > Makefile | 16 +++++++++------- > > arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++++ > > arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 29 ++++++++++------------------- > > arch/arm/lib/Makefile | 1 + > > arch/arm/lib/crt0_arm_efi.S | 3 ++- > > arch/arm/lib/eabi_compat.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > arch/x86/cpu/i386/call64.S | 2 +- > > common/spl/spl_fit.c | 2 +- > > common/spl/spl_opensbi.c | 5 +++++ > > lib/efi_loader/elf_efi.ldsi | 7 +++---- > > scripts/Makefile.lib | 4 ++-- > > 11 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.45.2 > >
