Timur Tabi wrote:
> Jerry Van Baren wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm guessing from the name "eeprom" that you have a non-zero initializer
>> on it???
>
> No, no initializer.
>
>> Does it make a difference if it is uninitialized, initialized
>> to {0}, or initialized to non-zero values?
>
> I don't know, I haven't considered it.
>
> I did notice this code in fsl_i2c.c:
>
> #ifdef CFG_SPD_BUS_NUM
> static unsigned int i2c_bus_num __attribute__ ((section ("data"))) =
> CFG_SPD_BUS_NUM;
> #else
> static unsigned int i2c_bus_num __attribute__ ((section ("data"))) = 0;
> #endif
>
> I wrote this code, but I don't remember why I added the "__attribute__
> ((section
> ("data")))". I guess I should have commented it, but I wonder if it applies
> to
> my current problem.
It doesn't apply in the original complaint and may be flat out wrong,
but I recall having a problem forcing a zero initializer into the data
section. Gcc insisted on putting it in bss and, after playing language
lawyer with the gcc manual/descriptions/etc, I concluded it was expected
behavior of gcc.
[snip]
> When I post the full patch, I'll revisit this problem. Sorry for all the
> noise.
Interesting quirk. We may give you a hard time, but that just betrays
our curiosity. ;-)
Best regards,
gvb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
