Le 24/02/2011 12:08, sughosh ganu a écrit : > hi Albert, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.arib...@free.fr > <mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Sughosh, > > Le 24/02/2011 11:01, sughosh ganu a écrit : > > Can you please tell me what could have caused this change. I > compiled > u-boot for a powerpc board, and found that the file type in that > case is > 'ELF Executable'. Is there any specific reason why the file type has > changed for ARM, as powerpc also supports relocation. > > > You have already answered your own question: the move to relocatable > executable caused the change you see. > > > Yes, this is true, what i wanted to understand was the reason why the > 'Type' field is different for ARM now, compared to the u-boot elf image > for powerpc. Not sure if i am missing something, but powerpc also > supports relocation, so what is the reason for the difference in the > two image types. Prior to relocation, we used to get the file type as > 'Executable', same as powerpc.
PPC and ARM have different architectures, different toolchains, different methods for relocation -- that explains the different ELF type. > I suspect the utility freaks out because it thinks the ELF cannot be > made into a binary like it would previously, but actually the binary > generation process did not change when we refactored the relocation > -- maybe the utility would work on our relocatable ELFs with just > the check for ELF type bypassed. > > Yes, even i think that would be the case, but i guess that would call > for changes in the utility. Perhaps someone from TI can look into this. Isn't there some official support channel? > -sughosh Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
