On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:02:30PM -0600, Dave Martin wrote:
To make it easier to deal with cases like this, I've had a
go at writing some macros to make copying function bodies
easier, while being robust for ARM and Thumb-2.
How about instead providing some infrastructure which coes the
copy
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:02:30PM -0600, Dave Martin wrote:
To make it easier to deal with cases like this, I've had a
go at writing some macros to make copying function bodies
easier, while being
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:00:25AM -0600, Dave Martin wrote:
omap provides some infrastructure for both allocating SRAM space and
doing the copy, using omap_sram_push() and friends. So I wasn't sure
what the correct level of abstraction was for the new helpers.
Certainly, providing a sort of
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:00:25AM -0600, Dave Martin wrote:
omap provides some infrastructure for both allocating SRAM space and
doing the copy, using omap_sram_push() and friends. So I wasn't sure
what
For at least one board (omap3), some functions are copied from
their link-time location into other memory at run-time.
This is a plausible thing to do if, for example, the board
might need to do something like manipulating the SDRAM
controller configuration during power management operations.
