Hallo Sascha, On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 12:31 +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:18:52PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:33:56 +0100 > > "Thorsten K. Scherer" <t.scherer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > fixes 97e81f2 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thorsten K. Scherer <t.scherer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/asm-generic/barebox.lds.h | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/barebox.lds.h b/include/asm- > > > generic/barebox.lds.h > > > index 74d3ca4a9..decaab79a 100644 > > > --- a/include/asm-generic/barebox.lds.h > > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/barebox.lds.h > > > @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ > > > #define BAREBOX_IMD \ > > > KEEP(*(.barebox_imd_start)) \ > > > KEEP(*(.barebox_imd_1*)) \ > > > - *(.barebox_imd_0*) \ > > > + KEEP(*(.barebox_imd_0*)) \ > > > KEEP(*(.barebox_imd_end)) > > > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_BAREBOX_MAX_BARE_INIT_SIZE) && \ > > > -- > > > 2.19.1 > > > > It looks like this patch has unobvious drawback. > > The bareboximd utility sees too many 'model' and 'compatible' > > strings in a single image, e.g.: > > Now I remember what the intention was that this line looks so > apparently > different from the other ones ;) > > To get the compatible strings into the binary I have created > imd_used(). > This should be called with the symbol that should be kept in the > resulting image. > > Sascha > sorry for introducing confusion. I misread the documenation on IMD as "of_compatible and model will be figured out and put into the proper location by barebox". What's your opinion on adding some documentation for "imd_used" in (user/imd.rst)? So I may try to produce a meaningful a patch for that. Or is this out of scope (at least in this context)? Best regards, Thorsten _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
