On 2/26/10 2:23 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > On 2/25/10 11:44 PM, Myles Watson wrote: >> >> In case someone wants to look into this. The attached patch tries >> to do >> relocable coreboot_ram. It does not work. It looks like dynamic >> linker does not >> fix call to hardware main in the c_start.o - reason is unknown. >> >> Relocating coreboot_ram seems like a great idea. It seems like there >> was a lot of discussion on the mailing list with v3 about PIC and why >> it couldn't work for us. My memory about it is fuzzy now, but a >> little searching might turn something up. > > The idea sounds incredibly sweet. > > But lets make sure we gain from it in the end... > Relocating coreboot_ram would safe us two 1MB sized memcpy on the > resume path, so we would safe at least 200 microseconds of boot time > in the case we're resuming. (assuming memory is 6.4G/s, DDR2-800 aka > PC2-6400) .... 0.2milliseconds of 400+... worth the complexity? minus the time added needed by the linker for the linking..
How does linking go with lzma? - do the relocations require more RAM? How much? - can the sections and relocations be lzma'ed together? or are they separate files in CBFS?
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
