Dear All,
I m new to U-Boot . Plz dont neglect me may be this a sily question but
I want to know is U-Boot is using directly physical address or virtual
address of a processor .
plz reply this question .
On 7/26/08, u-boot-users-request@lists.sourceforge.net <u-boot-users-request@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Send U-Boot-Users mailing list submissions to
u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
u-boot-users-request@lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
u-boot-users-owner@lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of U-Boot-Users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Wolfgang Denk)
2. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Wolfgang Denk)
3. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Wolfgang Denk)
4. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Grant Likely)
5. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Grant Likely)
6. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (vb)
7. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (vb)
8. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Grant Likely)
9. Re: Changing u-boot relocation scheme (Grant Likely)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:36:35 +0200
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se>
Cc: vb <vb@vsbe.com>, u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, Haavard
Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>, Jerry Van Baren
<gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Message-ID: <20080726053635.56011248BF@gemini.denx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In message <1217006928.7972.47.camel@duo> you wrote:
>
> I know exactly what Grant did. But he is not using the elf relocation
> information as that is simply not included in the data that is the
> u-boot.bin file.
So what? Is this a problem? Why would we need to use XXX if we can
perform all we need to do by using YYY instead, especially if this is
simpler to implement?
> Also this discussion is more about doing it in a way that is not powerpc
> specific and documented, we already have as you mentioned code for the
> powerpc specific way but it's not using elf relocation information.
Who says that we MUST use the ELF reloc info?
Or why?
> I was afraid that what was needed was more or less a complete linker but
> it looks like if one generate the dynamic reloc table a much simpler
> linker(relocation function) is needed. Still probably a lot more complex
> than the GOT and fixup code that is just a loop over a table. We may
> need a case also ;-)
Please re-read Grant's patch. There were NO changes to the existing
simple code!
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Murder is contrary to the laws of man and God.
-- M-5 Computer, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:36:35 +0200
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>
Cc: vb <vb@vsbe.com>, u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, Jerry Van
Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Message-ID: <20080726053635.65A47242FF@gemini.denx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In message <20080725205017.564dedff@siona.local> you wrote:
>
> Ok, I'll stop the chest-beating now. But please stop trying to tell
> people that adding a powerpc-specific option (which nobody seems to
> know how really works) to the command line will work on any other
> architectures than powerpc.
OK - then please you explain exactly which other architectures have
problems with relocation?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:36:35 +0200
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: "Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>
Cc: 'vb' <vb@vsbe.com>, u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, 'Haavard
Skinnemoen' <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <20080726053635.36A81248BF@gemini.denx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In message <013a01c8ee5a$966d6c40$c34844c0$@Tjernlund@transmode.se> you wrote:
>
> I think the best bet is to make -mrelocatable work for PPC. Question is how
> does the other arches do it? Do they include fixup ptrs by default or do
> they lack this functionality?
The question that needs to answered first is if any other
architectures are affected at all, and if so, which ones.
For example, ARM and MIPS (and probably most others) do *NOT* perform
any relocation at all (this should be fixed, of course - being one of
the big probalems we inherited from the original ARMBoot port), but as
is the whole discussion is a non-isssue on these architectures.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult.
-- R.S. Barton
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:43:31 -0400
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: vb <vb@vsbe.com>
Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Message-ID:
<fa686aa40807252243u4c2957f7y1f80ec22e234c622@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:45 AM, vb <vb@vsbe.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang, thank you for your reply, let me try to explain myself a bit clearer:
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
>> In message <f608b67d0807231039i434e96dbvda86590776db2cb0@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>> If you invest time in solving such problems, than your time willbe
>> much better iinvested if you try to help solving the remaining issues
>> with Grant's code.
>>
>> What Grant suggests is the way to go. I do not think your approach has
>> chances for mainline.
>>
>
> I am sorry to hear this, especially since what I suggest would be
> completely compiler agnostic and would allow to avoid some of the
> limitations one must follow today while adding stuff to u-boot.
The problem is that the u-boot C runtime setup is insane and must be
fixed. Fix the C runtime and the problem goes away. The approach
being suggested here would have us *preserve* the insane C runtime and
actually depend on the runtime to remain insane in order to work.
Not a good approach.
The C runtime problem is solvable, but I didn't have the time or
resources to properly dig into it and I got frustrated before it was
fully debugged.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:48:09 -0400
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: "Kenneth Johansson" <kenneth@southpole.se>
Cc: vb <vb@vsbe.com>, u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, Haavard
Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Message-ID:
<fa686aa40807252248m33b205b9y521f01c4c8711471@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Kenneth Johansson <kenneth@southpole.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:37 -0700, vb wrote:
>> But as you pointed out, this would work on ppc only (with a 'good'
>> compiler), and still remains to be proven, I will get to it a bit
>> later.
>
> I have run u-boot with everything compiled with -mrelocatable and normal
> relocation fixup code removed so I know it works fine. So consider it
> proven. But since it apparently is a problem in some situation the best
> is probably to make it a configuration option.
Can you test against various versions of gcc? That is where I ran into trouble.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:51:26 -0700
From: vb <vb@vsbe.com>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: "Wolfgang Denk" <wd@denx.de>
Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID:
<f608b67d0807252251p55fce269j9eb9e4d5052c8f83@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> In message <f608b67d0807250751j137e70c0oe67affcf46399c8e@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> Maybe I should have been more explicit right from the beginning. I
> repeat: forget it. This will *not* go into mainline. Zero chance.
>
well, it's your call, I'ill stick with -mrelocatable on 'non native'
modules then.
cheers,
/vb
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
> How many seconds are there in a year? If I tell you there are 3.155 x
> 10^7, you won't even try to remember it. On the other hand, who could
> forget that, to within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury.
>
-- Tom Duff, Bell Labs
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:54:51 -0700
From: vb <vb@vsbe.com>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID:
<f608b67d0807252254o772fd6d1ma5f753763414e3e1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Grant Likely
<grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>
> The problem is that the u-boot C runtime setup is insane and must be
> fixed. Fix the C runtime and the problem goes away. The approach
> being suggested here would have us *preserve* the insane C runtime and
> actually depend on the runtime to remain insane in order to work.
>
Grant, thank you for pitching in.
It would be great if you could elaborate what exactly is insane about
C runtime setup (especially since in u-boot its code comes from the
source tree and not from some obscure compiler dependent library) and
how its insanity is related here.
TIA,
/vb
> Not a good approach.
>
> The C runtime problem is solvable, but I didn't have the time or
> resources to properly dig into it and I got frustrated before it was
> fully debugged.
>
> g.
>
> --
> Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
> Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:57:02 -0400
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: "kenneth johansson" <kenneth@southpole.se>
Cc: vb <vb@vsbe.com>, u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, Haavard
Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>,
Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Message-ID:
<fa686aa40807252257o7a6b966bve89cb2830a0da0ef@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se> wrote:
> I was afraid that what was needed was more or less a complete linker but
> it looks like if one generate the dynamic reloc table a much simpler
> linker(relocation function) is needed. Still probably a lot more complex
> than the GOT and fixup code that is just a loop over a table. We may
> need a case also ;-)
The GOT relocation works. It works really well. As long as gcc and
ld put the correct GOT bits into the GOT table. It seems not all
versions of gcc do it in the same way with the same flags.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:06:36 -0400
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Changing u-boot relocation scheme
To: "Haavard Skinnemoen" <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com>
Cc: vb <vb@vsbe.com>, u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net, Wolfgang
Denk <wd@denx.de>, Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Message-ID:
<fa686aa40807252306p14e0fe43ta7fba15b4b43b492@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Haavard Skinnemoen
<haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com> wrote:
> Ok, I'll stop the chest-beating now. But please stop trying to tell
> people that adding a powerpc-specific option (which nobody seems to
> know how really works) to the command line will work on any other
> architectures than powerpc.
You are completely right. For the purposes of this discussion, this
is a powerpc-centric problem. The relocation code is written in
assembly and is processor specific. Let the ARM folks make sure ARM
relocation works (and I think it already does). Let the MIPS folks do
the same. Each arch has it's own set of CFLAGS and LDFLAGS needed to
produce a sane binary. They should be picked off and fixed one arch
at a time.
BTW, searching for assignments to reloc_off in the source will tell
you which platforms are broken.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
End of U-Boot-Users Digest, Vol 26, Issue 229
*********************************************