When U-Boot started using SPDX tags we were among the early adopters and
there weren't a lot of other examples to borrow from. So we picked the
area of the file that usually had a full license text and replaced it
with an appropriate SPDX-License-Identifier: entry. Since then, the
Linux Kernel has adopted SPDX tags and they place it as the very first
line in a file (except where shebangs are used, then it's second line)
and with slightly different comment styles than us.
In part due to community overlap, in part due to better tag visibility
and in part for other minor reasons, switch over to that style.
This commit changes all instances where we have a single declared
license in the tag as both the before and after are identical in tag
contents. There's also a few places where I found we did not have a tag
and have introduced one.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Rather than have a long and if check in the Makefile, mark the default
lowlevel_init function as weak (as we do on armv8) so that SoCs can
override it if needed, and it will still be discarded if unused.
Provide a weak s_init as well to allow for this to link and be
discarded.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
The SPL and U-Boot proper may use different initial stack
locations, which are configured via CONFIG_SPL_STACK and
CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR defines. The lowlevel_init.S
code needs to handle this in the same way as crt0.S
Without this fix, setting the U-Boot stack location to some
place, which is not safely accessible by the SPL (such as
the DRAM), causes a very early SPL deadlock.
Signed-off-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
We now have the CONFIG_SPL_DM for code within SPL to toggle caring about
DM or not. Without this change platforms that do enable CONFIG_DM but
not CONFIG_SPL_DM may be broken (such as OMAP5).
Cc: Albert Aribaud <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
This function has grown into something of a monster. Some boards are setting
up a console and DRAM here in SPL. This requires global_data which should be
set up in one place (crt0.S).
There is no need for SPL to use s_init() for anything since board_init_f()
is called immediately afterwards.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Building some arm boards with older binutils may produce errors like this:
---8<---
crt0.S: Assembler messages:
crt0.S:70: Error: register expected, not '#(184)' -- `sub sp,#(184)'
--->8---
Use canonical version of the subtract mnemonic to avoid those issues.
Reported-by: Alexey Smishlayev <alexey@xtech2.lv>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
To be more EABI compliant and as a preparation for building
with clang, use the platform-specific r9 register for gd
instead of r8.
note: The FIQ is not updated since it is not used in u-boot,
and under discussion for the time being.
The following checkpatch warning is ignored:
WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl>
cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
The boot parameters are read from individual variables
assigned for each of them. This been corrected and now
they are stored as a part of the global data 'gd'
structure. So read them from 'gd' instead.
Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com>
[trini: Add igep0033 hunk]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Make sure that when we setup the stack before calling s_init() we have
the stack have 8-byte alignment for ABI compliance.
Tested-by: Allen Martin <amartin@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Make the lowlevel_init function that these platforms have which just
sets up the stack and calls a C function available to all armv7
platforms. As part of this we change some of the macros that are used
to be more clear. Previously (except for am335x evm) we had been
setting CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR to a series of new defines that are
equivalent to simply referencing NON_SECURE_SRAM_END. On am335x evm we
should have been doing this initially and do now.
Cc: Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com>
Tested-by: Allen Martin <amartin@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
