On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Patrick Georgi wrote: > Am 12.11.2009 19:13, schrieb Myles Watson: >> This patch saves 28K on my s2895, and 55K on qemu. Anybody have a >> strong objection to that? Are we trying to have bootblock size be >> constant for each board? Does it mess up future plans for backwards >> compatibility? >> > Having a good automatic way to minimize the bootblock size is very > useful. As for backwards compatibility, what do you mean - updates? The > bootblock complicates any attempt to do safe updates currently. This > change won't improve it, but it won't make it worse. >> It uses an alignment of 256 bytes. Is that sufficient? Is it necessary? >> > Should be fine. > > My only issue is that I don't know if its behaviour is stable. ld > prefers to work from bottom to top in the address space and this > solution might interfere. > How can we get an "official" statement if this method is supported or > just luck that it works right now? A mail to the binutils list?
Anyone tried to confirm if this method is supported or not? -- Maciej Pijanka reg. Linux user #133161 -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
