On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> On 18 November 2012 21:52, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... snip ...
> > the fact that the current approach is prone to "error" can be seen
> > in the file arch/mips/lib/barebox.lds.S:
> >
> > #include <asm-generic/barebox.lds.h>
> >
> > OUTPUT_ARCH(mips)
> > ENTRY(_start)
> > SECTIONS
> > {
> > . = TEXT_BASE;
> >
> > . = ALIGN(4);
> > .text :
> > {
> > _start = .;
> > *(.text_entry*)
> > _stext = .;
> > _text = .;
> > __bare_init_start = .;
> > *(.text_bare_init*)
> > __bare_init_end = .;
> > *(.text*)
> > }
> > BAREBOX_BARE_INIT_SIZE
> >
> > PRE_IMAGE <--- ?????
> >
> > apparently, the MIPS architecture is including the "PRE_IMAGE"
> > content, despite the fact that it can't possibly be defined.
> > it's not wrong, it's just pointless and potentially confusing.
>
> Unfortunately nowadays MIPS lacks lowlevel initialization support.
> Yesterday I mailed RFC about pbl (prebootloader) support. It needs
> much work, but IMHO after incorporating MIPS pbl support the status
> of "PRE_IMAGE" will be more clear.
ok, but that still doesn't address the bigger issue that the
allegedly "generic" barebox.lds.h file really shouldn't be checking
for individual machines or architectures. IMHO.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
