Mark A. Greer wrote: > Why? Because its only safe to download a zImage to certain "safe" locations. > Where those "safe" locations are vary by firmware, firmware version, and > zImage size. This is the issue we're discussing.
In theory, yes -- but in practice the odds of this particular heuristic choosing an unsuitable address seem slim. > I've already explained _why_ the link address matters WRT where its > downloaded. Sorry, I was being a bit too pendantic with respect to the distinction between link and load address. >>> Also, being able to control the link address (that is, the download >>> address with some firmwares) is not a u-boot specific issue and we >>> shouldn't make a u-boot specific solution. >> How is this a u-boot specific solution? > > Because the hoops being jumped through in the patch(es) are to make > u-boot happy and no other firmware. No, the "hoops" (which I don't think are sufficiently complicated to warrant such a name) are to address a generic issue with the bootwrapper -- it wants to put the kernel at zero. It'd be really nice if, in the absense of a vmlinux_alloc method, the generic code would do an ordinary malloc() if there's not enough room at zero. >> I'd much rather it be automatic than require the user to guess an >> appropriate value (and be aware in the first place that it needs to be set). > > Sure, automatic is nice; conjuring up the magic to make it work in all > situations isn't. I think this heuristic would work in most situations, so if we do add a manual override it should be an override, and not something that everybody has to put up with. > Having the link address--and therefore the download address on some > systems--mysteriously and uncontrollably jump around based on the zImage > size is asking for trouble. It's a source of potential issues, but I think "asking for trouble" is exaggerating somewhat. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
