On Friday 27 March 2009 08:47:40 Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> >
> >> In message you wrote:
> >>> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
> >>> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
>> In message you wrote:
>>>
>>> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
>>> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
>>>
>>> But as long as we do not understand what we change
Hi Wolfgang,
> In message you wrote:
>>
>> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
>> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
>>
>> But as long as we do not understand what we change or what this does, we
>> may well get a lot of bug threads in
Dear Detlev,
In message you wrote:
>
> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
>
> But as long as we do not understand what we change or what this does, we
> may well get a lot of bug threads in return.
Hi Jon,
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Jon Smirl,
>>
>> In message <9e4733910903261435x598055f8m74c5ac03ad16b...@mail.gmail.com> you
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The *.bin format is not smart enough to encode gaps. It just puts in
>>> 60KB of zeros.
>>
>> Yes, of course. A
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jon Smirl,
>
> In message <9e4733910903261435x598055f8m74c5ac03ad16b...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>>
>> The *.bin format is not smart enough to encode gaps. It just puts in
>> 60KB of zeros.
>
> Yes, of course. A binary image cannot
Dear Jon Smirl,
In message <9e4733910903261435x598055f8m74c5ac03ad16b...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
>
> The *.bin format is not smart enough to encode gaps. It just puts in
> 60KB of zeros.
Yes, of course. A binary image cannot have holes in it.
> My ELF files are 73KB.
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 jonsmirl
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jon Smirl,
>
> In message <9e4733910903261350v21bf16c5l5729927048e0d...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not sure how you calculate sizes, or how you link your
>> > applications. Note that classical standalone application do not
Dear Jon Smirl,
In message <9e4733910903261350v21bf16c5l5729927048e0d...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how you calculate sizes, or how you link your
> > applications. Note that classical standalone application do not link
> > against any libraries, so they are really small:
>
> Th
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jon Smirl,
>
> In message <9e4733910903260647w549a97acv7101ea9347a76...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
>> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70K
Dear Jon Smirl,
In message <9e4733910903260647w549a97acv7101ea9347a76...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>
> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
>>>
Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
>
On Thursday 26 March 2009 09:47:08 Jon Smirl wrote:
> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
can the microcode access external memory (i.e. where u-boot lives) ? iirc,
the external functions are not li
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
>>
>>> Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
>>> bytes, add a puts("hello world") and it is 65KB.
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
>
> On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
>> Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
>> bytes, add a puts("hello world") and it is 65KB.
>>
>> I had expected the u-boot app examples to be smart and use t
On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
> bytes, add a puts("hello world") and it is 65KB.
>
> I had expected the u-boot app examples to be smart and use the copy of
> those libraries in the u-boot image. For example the d
Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jerry Van Baren
> wrote:
>> Jon Smirl wrote:
>>> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
>>> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>>>
>>> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
>>
>> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
>> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>>
>> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with the code in
>> exam
Jon Smirl wrote:
> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>
> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with the code in
> examples and api_examples. But the "hello world" programs built using
19 matches
Mail list logo
