On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 00:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:05:26PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 21:59, Robin Getz wrote: >> > On Sun 14 Jun 2009 16:44, Sam Ravnborg pondered: >> >> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 07:23:16PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> > intro: the current Blackfin memory architecture is (1) no virtualized >> >> > memory and (2) distinctly harvard. that means we cannot create a >> >> > linear map of start/end text sections. we end up with distinct >> >> > regions like so: >> >> > 00001000 T __stext >> >> > 000dc4c0 T __etext >> >> > feb00000 A __etext_l2 >> >> > feb00010 A __stext_l2 >> >> > ffa00000 T __stext_l1 >> >> > ffa0160c T __etext_l1 >> >> > this is because external memory starts at address 0 while on-chip >> >> > regions have different discontiguous hardcoded addresses (L1 >> >> > instruction in this case starts at 0xffa00000 while L2 starts at >> >> > 0xfeb00000). >> >> > >> >> > the current kallsyms is written to search for the special stext/etext >> >> > symbols only which means the resulting kallsyms output knows nothing >> >> > of the Blackfin symbols living in these on-chip regions. we've >> >> > written two patches to fix this: the first one is straight forward and >> >> > simply copies & pastes the existing hardcoded regions. the second >> >> > creates an array of text regions which makes it much easier to extend >> >> > in the future for other people (and can be squashed into the first >> >> > one). >> >> > >> >> > doesnt matter to me which method is picked :) >> >> >> >> I added both as I liked the generalization. >> >> I had to rearrange the "Signed-off-by" in the first patch >> >> as this patch came in vai you and not Robin. >> > >> > I think Mike pulled this from some work I did awhile ago, (and sent to you) >> > that obviously never got added (since I didn't send it in the proper patch >> > format). >> > >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0607.1/0558.html >> >> yeah, the first patch was by Robin ... the "From:" line in the patch >> should have shown that (and git-am would have respected) ... > > So does the patch. > What I had to change was that the Signed-off-by: lines indicated > that this patch came in like this: > > Robin -> Mike -> Bryan Wu -> Sam > So I rearranged the signed-off-by: lines so it indicated > the following order: > > Robin -> Bryan Wu -> Mike -> Sam > > > I trust that Bryan really did add his sob, and it > was only a mistake that Mike added his sob before > that of Bryans.
yes, i took a bunch of patches from Bryan like this one -mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel