Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 08:10:55PM +0200, Eric Benard / FREE wrote: > >>I'm investigating on a strange probklem I have on Assabet and a SA1110 >>board similar to Assabet : > > > Gah, there's that expression again... We don't care that a board is > "similar to the Assabet". If it has an SA1110, its similar to an > assabet. Tells us absolutely nothing. > sorry about this. I was just talking about the RAM/FLash configuration. > >>My question : in the redboot dump, are the exception handlers properly >>mapped and is their content good ? > > > Difficult to tell. If your flash is normally mapped at 0x50000000, then > they're mostly ok. The only thing that I'd be concerned about is that > it seems to want to jump to 0x60, but 'reset_vector' is 0x40. > Exactly this was the problem. This is logic and you are the champion in solving problems after only seeing a few lines of assembly ;-))) ... I was investigating on the problem since thursday without any success ... I changed 0x60 to 0x40 in the binary file and this did the trick. now the board starts everytime ;-)))
But, how to explain this problem ? Can this come from the compiler ? I'm using gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release). Last question (very stupid one but I want to be sure) : in the redboot dump, there are a .rom_vectors and a .text section is the following true ? - everything in .rom_vectors is address of code to jump to - everything in .text is assembled code So a "bootable" file can be done in 2 different ways : - like bootldr : using branch and only a .text section - like redboot : using vectors Many thanks Russell Eric _______________________________________________ http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/armlinux/mailinglists.php Please visit the above addresses for information on this list.
