On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:32:26PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 11:13 Mon 23 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:16:00AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 17:20 Sat 21 Sep , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > if not uimage set 0 by default > > > > > > > > today we do not see the issue as the kernel entry point is the same as the > > > > load_addr but on other binary its not necessary the case > > > > > > > > as today we ignore the entry point set in the uimage and just assume it's the > > > > same as the load_addr > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > this patch will also prepare to add a globalval and a getopt to overwrite the > > > os_entry > > > > We already have a getopt to overwrite the os_entry: -e > > > > > > > > yours do not care about this preparation by not setting > > > data.os_entry = UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS; > > > > Because UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS is not suitable for a relative offset to the > > image start. > > I use this ti let known th e uimage code that the os_entry is not overwrite > and that it must not modify it > > because if you specify via getopt or global and do not set UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS > the uimage code will overwrite the provided value So you have uImages which have the wrong entry point provided in the images? Why don't you fix the images instead? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
