On 06/21/2018 04:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 20 June 2018 at 02:51, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
On 06/20/2018 12:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 18 June 2018 at 08:45, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
On 06/18/2018 04:08 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Use a starting address of 256MB which should be available. This helps to
make sandbox RAM buffers pointers more recognisable.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
Nak, this has a non-0 chance of failing, in case something else is
already
mapped at that address. You don't want to have your CI blow up 1% of the
time due to this.
It's just a hint though. Everything will still work if it doesn't get
this exact address.
I don't see what it buys us then.
These are my thoughts:
1. We get an address before 4GB which is needed for grub (so far as I can tell)
We only need that in the memory map which you want virtual (U-Boot
address space) anyway. So there's no need to also have the Linux address
be <4GB.
2. It will normally be a nice, easy-on-the-eyes address
I'd rather say it's going to confuse people, because now it's easy to
mistake for a U-Boot address.
3. If it isn't, it will hopefully still be an address below 4GB
4. Even if not (e.g. on some very strange system) it will still allow
sandbox to start up
But anyway, as I said, this will never fail, it is just a hint. So I
think your original comment is incorrect.
It will not fail, it will just potentially not map at exactly the spot
you wanted the map at, which IMHO would cause even more confusion.
Imagine people now start to assume that %p output is stable between
invocations - because it is 99% of the cases. They start to integrate
that into their CI suites and suddenly things fail 1% of the time
because the linker figured today's a great day to map glibc at that address.
Alex
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
