On 24/09/2020 21:22, Stephen Warren wrote:
Hi Stephen,
> On 9/24/20 8:45 AM, André Przywara wrote:
>> On 24/09/2020 01:17, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> When the actual offset between link and runtime address is zero, there
>>> is no need for patching up U-Boot early when running with
>>> CONFIG_POSI
On 9/24/20 8:45 AM, André Przywara wrote:
> On 24/09/2020 01:17, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> When the actual offset between link and runtime address is zero, there
>> is no need for patching up U-Boot early when running with
>> CONFIG_POSITION_INDEPENDENT.
>
> That turns out to be not fully true.
> S
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 16:45, André Przywara wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2020 01:17, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > When the actual offset between link and runtime address is zero, there
> > is no need for patching up U-Boot early when running with
> > CONFIG_POSITION_INDEPENDENT.
>
> That turns out to be not
On 24/09/2020 01:17, Andre Przywara wrote:
> When the actual offset between link and runtime address is zero, there
> is no need for patching up U-Boot early when running with
> CONFIG_POSITION_INDEPENDENT.
That turns out to be not fully true.
Some toolchains (all Linaro cross compilers?) don't ha
When the actual offset between link and runtime address is zero, there
is no need for patching up U-Boot early when running with
CONFIG_POSITION_INDEPENDENT.
Skip the whole routine when the distance is 0.
This helps when U-Boot is loaded into ROM, or in otherwise sensitive
memory locations.
Sign
5 matches
Mail list logo