On 12/22/2009 11:35 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:25:13AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
The first such option rom will load at address 0, which isn't very nice,
and the second will report a conflict and abort, which is horrible.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity<a...@redhat.com>
---
hw/loader.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/loader.c b/hw/loader.c
index 2ceb8eb..c6bf0f1 100644
--- a/hw/loader.c
+++ b/hw/loader.c
@@ -654,6 +654,9 @@ int rom_load_all(void)
Rom *rom;
QTAILQ_FOREACH(rom,&roms, next) {
+ if (!rom->addr) {
+ continue;
+ }
Some roms needs to be loaded at address 0, it's the case for example of
the arm versatile bootloader. Adding this code will break the board
emulation.
The idea of keying bios-loading or host-loading on address is broken
(another instance of mixing control and data). We need a separate
control for this. I'll leave this to the authors of the code as I can't
make heads or tails of it.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
