On 12:42 Sat 19 Jan , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:26:48PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig | 6 +++
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile | 1 +
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > index fcba7fb..e703b3d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > @@ -483,4 +483,10 @@ config CMD_AT91MUX
> > bool "at91mux dump command"
> > default y
> >
> > +config CONFIG_CMD_AT91_BOOT_TEST
> > + bool "at91_boot_test"
> > + help
> > + allow to upload a boot binary to sram and execute it
> > + usefull to test bootstrap or barebox lowlevel init
>
> s/usefull/useful/
>
> > +
> > endif
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
> > index 53b4dd8..4404d23 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
> > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> > obj-y += setup.o clock.o gpio.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_AT91_BOOT_TEST) += boot_test_cmd.o
> >
> > lowlevel_init-y = at91sam926x_lowlevel_init.o
> > lowlevel_init-$(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200) = at91rm9200_lowlevel_init.o
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..02e16fd
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2012 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > + *
> > + * Under GPLv2 only
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <common.h>
> > +#include <command.h>
> > +#include <libbb.h>
> > +#include <getopt.h>
> > +#include <fs.h>
> > +#include <fcntl.h>
> > +#include <malloc.h>
> > +#include <errno.h>
> > +
> > +static int do_at91_boot_test(int argc, char *argv[])
> > +{
> > + int opt;
> > + u32 *buf32;
> > + void *buf;
> > + u32 jump = 0;
> > + int fd;
> > + int ret = 1;
> > + char *sram = "/dev/sram0";
> > + u32 read_size, write_size;
> > + u32 tmp = 0;
> > +
> > + while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "j:s:")) > 0) {
> > + switch (opt) {
> > + case 'j':
> > + jump = simple_strtoul(optarg, NULL, 0);
> > + break;
>
> Without the 'j' option given the code will jump to 0x0. Is this
> intended?
yes at91 we start at 0x0 for the code that run in sram
>
> > + case 's':
> > + sram = optarg;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + return COMMAND_ERROR_USAGE;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (argc < optind + 1)
> > + return COMMAND_ERROR_USAGE;
> > +
> > + buf32 = buf = read_file(argv[optind], &read_size);
> > + if (!buf)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + write_size = buf32[5];
> > +
> > + printf("size of the size %d\n", read_size);
> > + printf("size to load in sram %d\n", write_size);
> > +
> > + if (write_size > read_size) {
> > + printf("file smaller than requested sram loading size (%d < %d)\n", write_size, read_size);
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + fd = open(sram, O_WRONLY);
> > + if (fd < 0) {
> > + printf("could not open %s: %s\n", sram, errno_str());
> > + ret = fd;
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + while(write_size) {
> > + tmp = write(fd, buf, write_size);
> > + if (tmp < 0) {
> > + perror("write");
> > + goto err_open;
> > + }
> > + buf += tmp;
> > + write_size -= tmp;
> > + }
> > +
> > + shutdown_barebox();
> > +
> > + __asm__ __volatile__(
> > + "mov pc, %0\n"
> > + :
> > + : "r"(jump)
> > + :);
>
> Is this inline assemble needed? Why not
>
> void (*jump)(void);
>
> jump();
jump can be NULL
Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
