On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 00:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:05:26PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 21:59, Robin Getz wrote:
>> > On Sun 14 Jun 2009 16:44, Sam Ravnborg pondered:
>> >> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 07:23:16PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> > intro: the current Blackfin memory architecture is (1) no virtualized
>> >> > memory and (2) distinctly harvard. that means we cannot create a
>> >> > linear map of start/end text sections. we end up with distinct
>> >> > regions like so:
>> >> > 00001000 T __stext
>> >> > 000dc4c0 T __etext
>> >> > feb00000 A __etext_l2
>> >> > feb00010 A __stext_l2
>> >> > ffa00000 T __stext_l1
>> >> > ffa0160c T __etext_l1
>> >> > this is because external memory starts at address 0 while on-chip
>> >> > regions have different discontiguous hardcoded addresses (L1
>> >> > instruction in this case starts at 0xffa00000 while L2 starts at
>> >> > 0xfeb00000).
>> >> >
>> >> > the current kallsyms is written to search for the special stext/etext
>> >> > symbols only which means the resulting kallsyms output knows nothing
>> >> > of the Blackfin symbols living in these on-chip regions. we've
>> >> > written two patches to fix this: the first one is straight forward and
>> >> > simply copies & pastes the existing hardcoded regions. the second
>> >> > creates an array of text regions which makes it much easier to extend
>> >> > in the future for other people (and can be squashed into the first
>> >> > one).
>> >> >
>> >> > doesnt matter to me which method is picked :)
>> >> I added both as I liked the generalization.
>> >> I had to rearrange the "Signed-off-by" in the first patch
>> >> as this patch came in vai you and not Robin.
>> > I think Mike pulled this from some work I did awhile ago, (and sent to you)
>> > that obviously never got added (since I didn't send it in the proper patch
>> > format).
>> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0607.1/0558.html
>> yeah, the first patch was by Robin ... the "From:" line in the patch
>> should have shown that (and git-am would have respected) ...
> So does the patch.
> What I had to change was that the Signed-off-by: lines indicated
> that this patch came in like this:
> Robin -> Mike -> Bryan Wu -> Sam
> So I rearranged the signed-off-by: lines so it indicated
> the following order:
> Robin -> Bryan Wu -> Mike -> Sam
> I trust that Bryan really did add his sob, and it
> was only a mistake that Mike added his sob before
> that of Bryans.
yes, i took a bunch of patches from Bryan like this one
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited
royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing
server and web deployment.
kbuild-devel mailing list