| Message ID | 1299471395-26596-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Kumar Gala |
| Headers | show |
Dear Kumar Gala, In message <1299471395-26596-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote: > We don't use disable_law in the SPL code so only build it if > !CONFIG_NAND_SPL. Does -ffunction-sections / --gc-sections not catch this automatically? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
On Mar 13, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Kumar Gala, > > In message <1299471395-26596-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote: >> We don't use disable_law in the SPL code so only build it if >> !CONFIG_NAND_SPL. > > Does -ffunction-sections / --gc-sections not catch this automatically? Doesn't appear to, but not sure if the NAND makefiles are utilizing those options. - k
Dear Kumar Gala, In message <BCF2A946-E0CC-43F6-A875-A0E5A0DE7A6D@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote: > > >> We don't use disable_law in the SPL code so only build it if > >> !CONFIG_NAND_SPL. > > > > Does -ffunction-sections / --gc-sections not catch this automatically? > > Doesn't appear to, but not sure if the NAND makefiles are utilizing those options. Can you please verify this first? At first glace it looks as if the compilation was done with -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections, but I don't see --gc-sections on the linker command line Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
On Mar 14, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Kumar Gala, > > In message <BCF2A946-E0CC-43F6-A875-A0E5A0DE7A6D@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote: >> >>>> We don't use disable_law in the SPL code so only build it if >>>> !CONFIG_NAND_SPL. >>> >>> Does -ffunction-sections / --gc-sections not catch this automatically? >> >> Doesn't appear to, but not sure if the NAND makefiles are utilizing those options. > > Can you please verify this first? > > At first glace it looks as if the compilation was done with > -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections, but I don't see --gc-sections > on the linker command line commit 8aba9dceebb14144e07d19593111ee3a999c37fc Author: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu@nigauri.org> Date: Thu Jan 6 10:23:54 2011 +0900 Divides variable of linker flags to LDFLAGS-u-boot and LDFLAGS However, I think this is fixed via: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/84010/ Which we need anyways, because Haiying's patch fixes nand boot in general. - k
On Mar 6, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > We don't use disable_law in the SPL code so only build it if > !CONFIG_NAND_SPL. > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> > --- > drivers/misc/fsl_law.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) not need, fixed by --gc-sections / -ffunction-sections working properly - k
diff --git a/drivers/misc/fsl_law.c b/drivers/misc/fsl_law.c index 3233ff2..9b25ddc 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/fsl_law.c +++ b/drivers/misc/fsl_law.c @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ void set_law(u8 idx, phys_addr_t addr, enum law_size sz, enum law_trgt_if id) in_be32(LAWAR_ADDR(idx)); } +#ifndef CONFIG_NAND_SPL void disable_law(u8 idx) { gd->used_laws &= ~(1 << idx); @@ -92,7 +93,6 @@ void disable_law(u8 idx) return; } -#ifndef CONFIG_NAND_SPL static int get_law_entry(u8 i, struct law_entry *e) { u32 lawar;
We don't use disable_law in the SPL code so only build it if !CONFIG_NAND_SPL. Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> --- drivers/misc/fsl_law.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)