On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.arib...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 01/11/2010 20:23, Wolfgang Denk a écrit : >> Dear Albert ARIBAUD, >> >> In message<4ccef2e4.5080...@free.fr> you wrote: >>> >>> Also, I understand why the second RFC change I did was harmful to tx25. >>> Contrary to u-boot itself, u-boot-spl is not compiled to be position >>> independent; it actually loads at a given address then copies itself, >>> without relocating, to its home location. >> >> It copies _itself_? Not the U-Boot payload? >> >> Heiko, is this intentional? Do we really first load the whole image, >> then copy the U-Boot payload to some other address, then relocate it >> to yet another one? > > I haven't been clear. > > The boot ROM or IPL loads u-boot-spl in RAM at a fixed location and > jumps to it. > > u-boot-spl copies itself at its intended location if not already there, > and jumps to tiself at that new location. > > u-boot-spl loads u-boot at a fixed location and jumps to it. > > u-boot relocates (copies and fixes up) itself at top of ram if not > already there, and jumps to itself at that new location. >
Wow, what a terrible waste! Why does u-boot-spl need to relocate? Can't u-boot-spl load AND relocate u-boot, or does u-boot-spl have tight space constraints? Regards Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
