On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you > wrote: >> >> It's hit me before when I foolishly try to load something at address >> zero -- why do we put u-boot at the end of RAM, and put up with the >> relocation weirdness, if not to allow loading things at zero? > > We want to free as much memory as possible. But low RAM cannot be made > available on all systems. > >>> Well, one reason might be to have identical code for all PPC >>> systems ? >> >> It's already 85xx-specific code. > > Good point. Why don't we factor this out and make it common code for > all PPC?
Because the relocation is specific to the various interrupt types. Book-E will need different code for handing IVPR/IVORs than classic. >>> Not only 6xx. Actually all PPC. >> >> No, not all PPC. Book-E exceptions are different. > > Maybe. But then, these can use exception vectors at low mem, too, > right? They can, but it has to be setup. > For me the chance to have common code (and identical behaviour) for > all PowerPC processors is much more important that being able to use > 16 kB additional memory on one specific family of processors. - k ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
