Dear Wolfgang, > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 6:30 PM > To: V, Aneesh > Cc: Reinhard Meyer; Albert ARIBAUD; u-boot@lists.denx.de; h...@denx.de > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] arm926ejs: fix jump to RAM nand_boot > > Dear "V, Aneesh", > > In message > <ff55437e1f14da4baeb721a458b6701706fd313...@dbde02.ent.ti.com> you > wrote: > > > > Just curious. Why don't we allocate memory for such needs below > the > > u-boot (lower address) like we do for malloc area and stack. This > way > > the location where u-boot is relocated will only depend on the > SDRAM=20 > > size and size of u-boot itself, right? > > That would mean that all the memory where U-Boot was located is lost > for use in Linux, as we reserve these areas by adjusting the "mem=" > boot argument. Allocation of such memory blocks must start at the > top, ang do downwards. And U-Boot lies below that, then.
Thanks. It's clear now. Also, I checked the time it takes to do relocation. On OMAP4430 with Cortex-A9 at 1GHz and LPDDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz it took a mere 16 ms to do the relocation of u-boot image that was about 146 KB. I agree with you. Skipping relocation is not worth the complexity. Best regards, Aneesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot