In message <1147194879.2200.41.camel at excalibur.timesys.com> you wrote: > > Thanks again for the advice. Interestingly, I gave the wrong address > above. It wasn't 0x22000000, it was 0x02200000 (i.e. even lower!). And > yet with the "io_remap()'ed global variable" patch, 2.6.11.7 does indeed > work on this board with this U-Boot.... Perhaps this works because this > particular board only has 8MiB of RAM....
It does not work. It will certainly crash as soon as you start a few user space applications. > Bottom line: I'm wondering what the Linux PPC community thinks is the > correct long term solution to these discrepancies. Should we the > community declare "Freescale U-Boots are considered harmful; never use > them; always use the official U-Boot sources" ??? Indeed it would be nice if Freescale worked more directly with the community. > Or should we create a kernel mechanism to automatically adapt to the > different U-Boot flavors? No, of course not. U-Boot is just one boot loader, there are many others, and the kernel hast to stay independent. And it is definitely not the kernel's fault if the boot loader sets up a braindamaged memory map. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie
