Moving the interrupt vectors to low memory can cause issues if the code
gets overwritten via some image loading command (tftp, boot*, etc.) and
interrupts (like the decrementer are enabled).
On 85xx there is no reason to copy the interrupt vectors to low memory
since we can run them in high
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Moving the interrupt vectors to low memory can cause issues if the code
gets overwritten via some image loading command (tftp, boot*, etc.) and
interrupts (like the decrementer are enabled).
Oops? This is expected and normal behaviour. Did anybody
On Aug 6, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message Pine.LNX.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Moving the interrupt vectors to low memory can cause issues if the
code
gets overwritten via some image loading command (tftp, boot*, etc.)
and
interrupts (like the decrementer are
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Oops? This is expected and normal behaviour. Did anybody complain
about this?
Real, any reason why? I understand on classic PPC this might be the
case but I see no reason for it to be so on book-e parts.
Well, one reason might be to have
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Oops? This is expected and normal behaviour. Did anybody complain
about this?
It's hit me before when I foolishly try to load something at address
zero -- why do we put u-boot at the
Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Oops? This is expected and normal behaviour. Did anybody complain
about this?
It's hit me before when I foolishly try to load something at address
zero -- why do we put
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It's hit me before when I foolishly try to load something at address
zero -- why do we put u-boot at the end of RAM, and put up with the
relocation weirdness, if not to allow loading things at zero?
We want to free as much memory as possible. But low
On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you
wrote:
It's hit me before when I foolishly try to load something at address
zero -- why do we put u-boot at the end of RAM, and put up with the
relocation weirdness, if not to allow loading things at zero?
On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 9D199630-11FA-4028-8EE6-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Good point. Why don't we factor this out and make it common code for
all PPC?
Because the relocation is specific to the various interrupt types.
Book-E will need different
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Book-E will need different code for handing IVPR/IVORs than classic.
Umm... the exception code itself may be different, but does this imply
that the code used to copy / relocate the exception handlers to low
mem must be different, too?
the
On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message D5CA3AB9-3AE3-439C-A169-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Book-E will need different code for handing IVPR/IVORs than
classic.
Umm... the exception code itself may be different, but does this
imply
that the code used to copy /
11 matches
Mail list logo
