Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2010/11/24 18:16:56: > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:04:15 +0100 > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote: > > > > > > > Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2010/11/23 23:32:04: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:14:06 +0100 > > > > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2010/11/23 22:20:58: > > > > > > "load address" being pre-relocation? Currently these must be equal > > > > > > (which doesn't seem particularly burdensome). > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but in our case we update the boot in the field and we want to > > > > > make that safer by having two uboot areas but we don't want to carry > > > > > around > > > > > two u-boot images. > > > > > > > > How about playing with BATs before entering C code, so that the image > > > > always appears at the same effective address? > > > > > > hmm, never thought of that. The extra bonus would be that LINK_OFF should > > > not be needed either. > > > > After sleeping on it I realize that all direct accesses to the flash > > such as getting the env. will need to be adjusted instead. > > You could have one small mapping for the U-Boot image, and another > larger unchanging mapping that covers the whole flash.
Played a little with this but it seems like two BATs cannot overlap? _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
