On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 41F2F68F-34F5-4D3B-8AA1-294589B48033@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
Oops? This is expected and normal behaviour. Did anybody complain about this?
It's hit me before when I foolishly try to load something at address zero -- why do we put u-boot at the end of RAM, and put up with the relocation weirdness, if not to allow loading things at zero?
Real, any reason why? I understand on classic PPC this might be the case but I see no reason for it to be so on book-e parts.
Well, one reason might be to have identical code for all PPC systems ?
It's already 85xx-specific code.
Any they are. I'm just removing a second relocation that is a hold over from how 6xx PPC exception vectors work.
Not only 6xx. Actually all PPC.
No, not all PPC. Book-E exceptions are different.
-Scott