Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2011/01/18 18:27:49: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:18:34 +0100 > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote: > > > How do you think a solution for all boards would look like? > > The only other method is can think of is some MMU trickery and > > I don't even see how you can make that work on all boards and > > You don't need to make the MMU trick work on all boards, just your board > (or cpu family), because it wouldn't be imposing anything on > the rest of the system. Do we actually have someone who > needs this feature on a board without a suitable MMU, large lockable > cache or other SRAM, hardware bank switching, or other mechanism > that can be confined to early low-level board/cpu-specific code?
Wolfgang seems to think so. As I read his reply he wants a solution for all boards which I don't think is possible. I do think my approach comes closest though. I did try BATs but I didn't get very far. > > > you would probably be locked to specific address ranges if > > you use BATs as defined on PowerPC > > You'd have alignment constraints, but it's good enough for bank > switching. Alignment and a suitable bank size so you don't fall into your environment. That may make BATs hard to use in general. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
