On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:02:57PM +0100, Magnus Damm wrote: > > Can you give more information about where everything is loaded up at? I > > thought this was a non-issue, but it's been a while since I tested > > initrds. > > Sure. [snip] > this mail says something about typos or misuse of _ALIGN(). > http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/9/0/9715261/
I _think_ this is intentional, ie make sure we have bigger than needed alignments, possibly to try and avoid what we've hit here. > If _ALIGN() now is used correctly, then the align definition > maybe chould be changed from > #define _ALIGN(addr,size) (((addr)+size-1)&(~(size-1))) > to > #define _ALIGN(addr,size) (((addr)+(size)-1)&(~((size)-1))) > to make sure that size is treated correctly. Or maybe it's a feature. =) Fixing that now, thanks. > Second example: [snip] > I have not been able to output the value of zimage_size for this case, but I'm > sure that my initrd gets overwritten with the bi_record at 0x00200000. Yeah, I'm sure too. Here's an untested patch vs current linuxppc_2_4_devel, which will relocate the initrd if needed. The current bi_rec code in the kernel shouldn't care if the initrd is moved (This was broken in the past and then pointed out / fixed later, so I'm rather confident of this part :)) so it should be OK. For 2.5, I'm pondering going back and re-reading all of the discussions and maybe even starting on it, with an arbitrary location for the bi_recs which would let this case be much simpiler. > Another thing - why is the second argument (dstlen) to gunzip() always 4 > megabytes? > Maybe it could be set to the address that the image is loaded at / relocated > to? > (0x180000 above) That way the gunzip function wouldn't overwrite the running > code, > if I understand the dstlen argument correctly that is. I'm not sure about this part. Tested patches are welcome of course. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
