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 u-boot at the end of RAM, and put up with the > relocation weirdness, if not to allow loading things at zero? > >>> 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 identical code for all PPC systems ? > > It's already 85xx-specific code. > >>> Any they are. I'm just removing a second relocation that is a hold >>> over from how 6xx PPC exception vectors work. >> Not only 6xx. Actually all PPC. > > No, not all PPC. Book-E exceptions are different. > > -Scott
One nice thing about not relocating the exception vectors to 0 is that it would allow us to recover from a failed bootm all the way up to the jump to linux (or whomever) rather than having to reset the board to recover from a failure late in the bootm sequence. Unfortunately, it would be Book-E specific and probably not worth coding Yet Another Special Case in the already overcomplex bootm code. Best regards, gvb ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users