On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 15.10.2008 04:54, ron minnich wrote: >>> return (void *) CONFIG_RAM_STACK_LOCATION; >>> >>> not quite right? CONFIG_RAM_STACK_LOCATION; + CONFIG_RAM_STACK_SIZE -4? >>> >> >> Actually, that was intentional. You see, we haven't decided on the >> meaning of the RAM_STACK_LOCATION constant/variable yet. We could very >> well declare it to be the initial %esp for RAM stacks. Then again, we >> could also decide that the stack shall be at the top of available RAM, >> and that would require us to use a variable. >> >> You supply the meaning of the variable, I'll make sure the code matches. >> > > let's call it RAM_TOP_OF_STACK and put it at the standard 88ffc >
Sorry: RAM_STACK_BASE at 0x88ffc ron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
