On 05.09.2007 19:26, Marc Jones wrote:
>
> ron minnich wrote:
>> So here is a good point. Why not adopt the existing convention that a
>> load address of 0x means "XIP"?
>>
> Yes agreed, That is how I did it in my testing.
Was there a followon patch for lar?
Carl-Daniel
--
linuxbios m
ron minnich wrote:
> So here is a good point. Why not adopt the existing convention that a
> load address of 0x means "XIP"?
>
Yes agreed, That is how I did it in my testing.
Marc
--
Marc Jones
Senior Firmware Engineer
(970) 226-9684 Office
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.amd.com/
On 9/5/07, Alex Beregszaszi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LAR doesn't has a field for telling that an entry will be XIP or not.
> Whether we run it in place or move it is only our _runtime_ decision,
> thus this check is needed.
>
So here is a good point. Why not adopt the existing convention that
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 20:19 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Alex Beregszaszi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > attached patch returns if someone tries to execute in place a compressed
> > entry.
> >
>
> This is a must never happen. If the lar tool ever creates this, it has
> s
On 9/4/07, Alex Beregszaszi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> attached patch returns if someone tries to execute in place a compressed
> entry.
>
This is a must never happen. If the lar tool ever creates this, it has
seriously screwed up. We need to make sure the lar tool can not set
both compr
* Alex Beregszaszi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070904 13:19]:
> Hi,
>
> attached patch returns if someone tries to execute in place a compressed
> entry.
>
> --
> Alex
r492
--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: [EMAIL P
Hi,
attached patch returns if someone tries to execute in place a compressed
entry.
--
Alex
Index: lib/lar.c
===
--- lib/lar.c (revision 486)
+++ lib/lar.c (working copy)
@@ -251,6 +251,13 @@
filename);
return 1;
}
