On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Peter Tyser wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 19:51 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Peter Tyser, >> >> In message <1254843932.24664.2083.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you >> wrote: >>> >>> I personally like the current implementation of putting the bss >>> after >>> the entire U-Boot image. It keeps U-Boot's code, malloc pool, >>> stack, >>> bss, etc all in the same general area which is nice, and has the >>> side >>> benefit that the bootpg won't be overwritten. >> >> OK, if you think so... >> >>> I know ORing in 0x10 is a bit ugly, but what's the real downside of >>> doing it? >> >> Nothing. I just hate to allocate the bss at 0x0, because this is >> actually incorrect - it's the result of an address overflow / >> truncation, and pretty much misleading to someone trying to read and >> understand the code. For the linked image, it does not _look_ as if >> the bss was located _after_ the U-Boot image, it looks detached and >> allocated in low RAM. > > Do you have a preference Kumar? You're probably going to be the first > in line to have to deal with any resulting confusion:) > > I personally would rank the options: > 1. OR in an offset to the bss address and leave some good comments in > the linker script and commit message > > 2. Make the bss the last section like other PPC boards which would > result in the bootpg sometimes being overwritten > > 3. Put the bss at an arbitrary address
I don't have a preference, but maybe I missed the answer to my question about where does 44x put the BSS. Is it possible to put it before TEXTBASE? - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
