On 15.10.2008 17:34, ron minnich wrote: > 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 88ff > > Sorry: RAM_STACK_BASE at 0x88ffc >
While I do agree, it may be confusing for some people to have RAM_STACK_BASE denote the upper (as in memory location) end of the stack and CARBASE denote the lower end of the stack. Suggested fix: Introduce the following #define: #define CAR_STACK_BASE (CONFIG_CARBASE + CONFIG_CARSIZE - 4) What do you think? Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
