diff mbox

[U-Boot,2/7] omap/spl: don't assume u-boot.bin size, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE

Message ID 1318894433-9038-3-git-send-email-yanok@emcraft.com
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Tom Rini
Headers show

Commit Message

Ilya Yanok Oct. 17, 2011, 11:33 p.m. UTC 
Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.

Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
---
 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c |    3 +--
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Tom Rini Oct. 17, 2011, 11:43 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com> wrote:
> Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
> missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>

I don't like this since it means we need to always define this
variable when well behaved situations will have shipped u-boot.img
anyhow.  Or is there really a good reason
to fall back to u-boot.bin?
Ilya Yanok Oct. 17, 2011, 11:50 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Tom,

On 18.10.2011 03:43, Tom Rini wrote:
>> Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
>> missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
> 
> I don't like this since it means we need to always define this
> variable when well behaved situations will have shipped u-boot.img
> anyhow.  Or is there really a good reason
> to fall back to u-boot.bin?

No, I don't think so. I got your point. Still I think hardcoding the
size value is not very good solution either. Maybe we can add something like

#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE
#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE (200 * 1024) /* 200kB - default */
#endif

?

Regards, Ilya.
Ilya Yanok Oct. 31, 2011, 12:38 p.m. UTC | #3 
Hi Tom, All,

On 18.10.2011 03:43, Tom Rini wrote:
>> Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
>> missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>

So what about this patch? Should I drop it?

Regards, Ilya.
Tom Rini Oct. 31, 2011, 2:43 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom, All,
>
> On 18.10.2011 03:43, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
>>> missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
>
> So what about this patch? Should I drop it?

That would be my vote, but I don't have a MAINTAINER hat anywhere here ;)
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
index c76fea6..f28411b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
+++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c
@@ -81,8 +81,7 @@  void spl_parse_image_header(const struct image_header *header)
 		printf("mkimage signature not found - ih_magic = %x\n",
 			header->ih_magic);
 		puts("Assuming u-boot.bin ..\n");
-		/* Let's assume U-Boot will not be more than 200 KB */
-		spl_image.size = 200 * 1024;
+		spl_image.size = CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE;
 		spl_image.entry_point = CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE;
 		spl_image.load_addr = CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE;
 		spl_image.os = IH_OS_U_BOOT;