On 15.10.2009 14:28, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> On 15.10.2009 13:04, Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> >> >>> ron minnich wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Myles Watson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So I guess the question is how should we make sure the stack and heap are >>>>> sized correctly. Using malloc to allocate the memory for lzma makes >>>>> sense, >>>>> but it is used in CAR too, so that complicates our decision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> lzma decompressor gets a void * from the caller. Caller, if CAR, uses >>>> on-stack pointer. RAM code can, if desired, >>>> use malloc'ed memory? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> We never call lzma while in CAR. Now that would be kind of silly, would it? >>> >>> >>> >> Well, originally ulmza() was designed to be runnable in CAR on the OLPC. >> >> > > What for? Decompressing to cache? This sounds a bit odd, with a 16kB > scratchpad, and only 128KB cache. >
I didn't say it was a good idea. I had not understood coreboot design well enough to know that decompression would be run after CAR and thought coreboot was running decompression to RAM while the stack still lived in CAR. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- Developer quote of the week: "We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers." -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
