Thanks for the quick responses.
Thanks for the quick responses.
Actually it doesn't need to be so big, to justify use TEXT_BASE
0xfff0. Im really wasting flash memory.
The problem is that in U-Boot-1.2.0, u-boot.bin gets filled, and in
U-Boot-2009.03 seems that objcopy doesn't fill the right
Dear Jerry Van Baren,
In message <4a7adcc8.9040...@ge.com> you wrote:
>
> Argh, some days I read. Other days...
With a little training you probably can learn to read _while_ rolling
your eyes :-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Z
Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Hi Alemao,
>
> Alemao wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Im having problems porting u-boot-2009.03 to a MPC8541 board.
^^^
[snip]
> You did not say what processor you are using, but it sounds
> like a MPC74xx or MPC86xx or MPC8
Hi Alemao,
Alemao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Im having problems porting u-boot-2009.03 to a MPC8541 board.
>
> In u-boot-1.2.0, if I use TEXT_BASE = 0xfff0, u-boot.bin is
> created with 1MB size.
The .bin file is a binary image from the first location 0xfff0
*contiguously filled* to the last
Dear Alemao,
In message you
wrote:
>
> Im having problems porting u-boot-2009.03 to a MPC8541 board.
>
> In u-boot-1.2.0, if I use TEXT_BASE = 0xfff0, u-boot.bin is
> created with 1MB size.
Sounds like a waste of flash memoory ?
> But in u-boot-2009.03 it's created with only 516kB.
Look
5 matches
Mail list logo