From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1irK2Z-0006BL-4B for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:07:23 +0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:07:15 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20200114110715.hpw6papufveol6qb@pengutronix.de> References: <20200113193637.133182-1-dev@lynxeye.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200113193637.133182-1-dev@lynxeye.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: zynq: zed: partially revert zynq_cpu_lowlevel_init() chnages To: Lucas Stach Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 08:36:37PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > Calling arm_cpu_lowlevel_init() from zynq_cpu_lowlevel_init() adds a stack > push/pop to the latter function which doesn't work this early in the boot. > > As the BootROM apparently hands proccessor control to us in abort(!?!) > mode, setting up a stack requires duplicating most of arm_cpu_lowlevel_init(). > To get around this catch-22 move the call to arm_cpu_lowlevel_init back into > the board lowlevel start function, so we don't need a stack at all. > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach > --- > arch/arm/boards/avnet-zedboard/lowlevel.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-zynq/cpu_init.c | 2 -- > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Applied, thanks Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox