On Friday 27 March 2009 08:47:40 Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> >
> >> In message you wrote:
> >>> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
> >>> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
>> In message you wrote:
>>>
>>> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
>>> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
>>>
>>> But as long as we do not understand what we change
Hi Wolfgang,
> In message you wrote:
>>
>> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
>> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
>>
>> But as long as we do not understand what we change or what this does, we
>> may well get a lot of bug threads in
Dear Detlev,
In message you wrote:
>
> > By providing a sample linker script to make the example programs
> > smaller, you could avoid discussions like this in the future.
>
> But as long as we do not understand what we change or what this does, we
> may well get a lot of bug threads in return.
Hi Jon,
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Jon Smirl,
>>
>> In message <9e4733910903261435x598055f8m74c5ac03ad16b...@mail.gmail.com> you
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The *.bin format is not smart enough to encode gaps. It just puts in
>>> 60KB of zeros.
>>
>> Yes, of course. A
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jon Smirl,
>
> In message <9e4733910903261435x598055f8m74c5ac03ad16b...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>>
>> The *.bin format is not smart enough to encode gaps. It just puts in
>> 60KB of zeros.
>
> Yes, of course. A binary image cannot
Dear Jon Smirl,
In message <9e4733910903261435x598055f8m74c5ac03ad16b...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
>
> The *.bin format is not smart enough to encode gaps. It just puts in
> 60KB of zeros.
Yes, of course. A binary image cannot have holes in it.
> My ELF files are 73KB.
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 jonsmirl
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jon Smirl,
>
> In message <9e4733910903261350v21bf16c5l5729927048e0d...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not sure how you calculate sizes, or how you link your
>> > applications. Note that classical standalone application do not
Dear Jon Smirl,
In message <9e4733910903261350v21bf16c5l5729927048e0d...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how you calculate sizes, or how you link your
> > applications. Note that classical standalone application do not link
> > against any libraries, so they are really small:
>
> Th
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jon Smirl,
>
> In message <9e4733910903260647w549a97acv7101ea9347a76...@mail.gmail.com> you
> wrote:
>> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
>> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70K
Dear Jon Smirl,
In message <9e4733910903260647w549a97acv7101ea9347a76...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>
> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
>>>
Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
>
On Thursday 26 March 2009 09:47:08 Jon Smirl wrote:
> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
can the microcode access external memory (i.e. where u-boot lives) ? iirc,
the external functions are not li
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
>>
>>> Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
>>> bytes, add a puts("hello world") and it is 65KB.
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
>
> On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
>> Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
>> bytes, add a puts("hello world") and it is 65KB.
>>
>> I had expected the u-boot app examples to be smart and use t
On 2009-03-26, at 15:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Libraries appear to be the problem. A program that just returns is 100
> bytes, add a puts("hello world") and it is 65KB.
>
> I had expected the u-boot app examples to be smart and use the copy of
> those libraries in the u-boot image. For example the d
Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jerry Van Baren
> wrote:
>> Jon Smirl wrote:
>>> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
>>> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>>>
>>> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
>>
>> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
>> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>>
>> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with the code in
>> exam
Jon Smirl wrote:
> My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
> function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
>
> My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with the code in
> examples and api_examples. But the "hello world" programs built using
My networking hardware needs microcode loaded into it before it will
function. What's the best method to load this code? It's 70KB.
My current u-boot image is 170KB. I started working with the code in
examples and api_examples. But the "hello world" programs built using
those APIs are 65-72KB in s
20 matches
Mail list logo
