Ronald G Minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 17 Jul 2002, Eric W Biederman wrote:
> 
> > Ronald G Minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > OK, the problem is that the new mkelfImage is putting things where
> > > linuxbios is, and the legacy linuxbios in many of our cards can't take
> > > that.
> >
> > How do you switch ELF images without switching LinuxBIOS?
> > The only case I can think of (etherboot) should not be a problem.
> 
> I'm not sure I get the point.
> 
> linuxbios on this particular board is loading etherboot from FLASH.
> Etherboot is then
> loading the elfImage generated by the latest mkelfImage. Two interesting
> things:
> - images generated by the new mkelfImage are not comprehensible to objdump
>   (but old ones are, I'm still trying to get to this)

I probably removed the section header.  readelf -a should still work.
This is a known objdump bug.

> - the new images have load address ca. 0x15000 etc. which seems to blow
>   etherboot out of the sky. the old images have high-memory load
>   addresses.

O.k. Killing etherboot is significantly different from killing LinuxBIOS.
I think I have always loaded some code 0x10000+,
but I have never had a version that kills etherboot for me.

Etherboot runs at 0x94000 so I don't see how a 0x15000 address would
kill it.

Anyway readelf -a gives me: from a 2.4.17 kernel.

But this may be another binutils bug of the kind that breaks LinuxBIOS
builds.  I'm about an inch from introducing a configure script that
tests for broken tools :)

Program Headers:
  Type           Offset   VirtAddr   PhysAddr   FileSiz MemSiz  Flg Align
  NOTE           0x0000d4 0x00010000 0x00010000 0x001c0 0x001c0 RWE 0
  LOAD           0x0000d4 0x00010000 0x00010000 0x016fc 0x059b4 RWE 0
  LOAD           0x0059b4 0x00091000 0x00091000 0x00000 0x00028 RWE 0
  LOAD           0x0059b4 0x00100000 0x00100000 0xe6e98 0x700000 RWE 0
  LOAD           0x0ec84c 0x00800000 0x00800000 0x00000 0x00000 RWE 0

> 
> > I hadn't realized I had changed the locations noticeably.  Unless this
> > is one of those cases where you always used a local hack, that I never
> > adopted.
> 
> if only that were the case :-)
> 
> Anyway I'll get back to you asap as soon as I have better info. Sometimes
> I describe the problem and you get me a patch in a few seconds :-)

I try.  It doesn't always work, but I try.

Eric

Reply via email to