> I did more debugging and something is really weird though. When the
> link address is changed to 0x80, when stepping through the kernel,
> I actually got the kernel boot successfully. However I let the kernel
> run through it would just crash. After crash the BDI2000 shows it
> stopped at __d
> I found the link_address in the wrapper shell script sets the _start
> address. But after changing it to 0x80, the kernel failed to boot,
> shown below. There must be something also needs proper adjustment.
> What would that be?
I did more debugging and something is really weird though. When
>> It should be fine to just change it locally. It would be a problem to
>> change it upstream for all boards, since some supported boards have
>> only 16MB (or even 8MB) of RAM.
>
> I'll definitely try to change it locally first. Would a configurable
> base address for the bootwrapper an acceptab
>> One way to lift this limitation is to relocate the bootwrapper to
>> somewhere else, say for example, 0x100 so that a 16MB initramfs
>> can be loaded. If the bootwrapper is relocated, what else would be
>> affected by this relocation?
>
> It should be fine to just change it locally. It woul
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:52 -0700
Shawn Jin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a ramdisk as RFS much larger than 4MB in a 2.4 kernel. In
> recent 2.6 kernels ramdisk is no longer supported so I decided to go
> with initramfs. However I found the initial RFS for initramfs is
> limited to 4MB since the boot
Hi,
I have a ramdisk as RFS much larger than 4MB in a 2.4 kernel. In
recent 2.6 kernels ramdisk is no longer supported so I decided to go
with initramfs. However I found the initial RFS for initramfs is
limited to 4MB since the bootwrapper locates at 0x40.
One way to lift this limitation is t
