Le 16/12/2010 10:18, Jason Liu a écrit : > Hi, Albert, > > 2010/12/16 Albert ARIBAUD<albert.arib...@free.fr>: >> Le 16/12/2010 04:04, Jason Liu a écrit : >>> >>> Hi, Albert, >>> >>> 2010/12/16 Albert ARIBAUD<albert.arib...@free.fr>: >>>> >>>> Hi Jason, >>>> >>>> Le 15/12/2010 14:57, Jason Liu a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> There will have issue if the _start not equal TEXT_BASE >>>>> when enable relocation. >>>> >>>> In what case does this happen? >>> >>> Some ARM SOC ROM need run the plug-in code first in IRAM and the >>> plugin-in code need appear at the beginning of the u-boot. ROM will >>> check the plugin-in header to do security check and run the plug-in >>> code to init the DDR etc. In this case the _start will be not the same >>> as TEXT_BASE. >> >> I still don't see why u-boot would not end up where specified. >> >> The fact that there is a "plug-in" (I assume it's what I would call an IPL) >> does not change the fact that its payload (u-boot) can and will be loaded >> where specified, i.e. at TEXT_BASE -- and if it is loaded elsewhere, it is >> at a fixed address, so TEXT_BASE can be adjusted) All IPLs that I know of >> put their payload where specified. > > It's not an IPL. The layout is that as the following, > > ---- ----- TEXT_BASE > plug-in > ---------- _start > > ---------- _end > > No matter what you adjusted the TEXT_BASE, the _star is not equal to it. > > The fix doe not affect the original functionality but just make it > more flexible.
This layout is not that of u-boot for ARM; the fix thus corrects a fault not inherent to u-boot but introduced by inserting this "plug-in" where it should not be. Why must you modify the original layout? Also, what is this 'plug-in' if it is not an IPL? Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
