Hi Sascha, Le 14/02/2013 12:35, Sascha Hauer a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:40:38AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi Sascha, >> >> Le 13/02/2013 18:16, Sascha Hauer a écrit : >>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> common/memsize.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/common/memsize.c b/common/memsize.c >>> index d149e41..ef6381b 100644 >>> --- a/common/memsize.c >>> +++ b/common/memsize.c >>> @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ >>> * Check memory range for valid RAM. A simple memory test determines >>> * the actually available RAM size between addresses `base' and >>> * `base + maxsize'. >>> + * >>> + * This function modifies the RAM. Do not use it if you're running from >>> + * the RAM you are going to detect! >>> */ >> >> Actually, I don't see how it modifies the RAM, at least permanently. The >> values it erase are backed up, and there's no concurrency at barebox >> level, so we are sure that the value saved will still be the one that >> would need to be backed up at the end of the function, right? > > Yes, it restores the values, but how do you make sure the function does > not modify the instructions you are currently executing? You need bad > luck to hit this, but sooner or later this will happen. Ah, yes, this would be nasty indeed. Is there a way to know the end address of barebox into RAM ? or the address it has been loaded to and the size of its binary, so that we can just check the part that doesn't hold barebox? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox