>> Oh, I don't think I mentioned in my previous e-mail, but I do have a >> working Barebox image for that case. The way I have it implemented >> right now is a vanilla, single board, no-PBL, no-relocation, i.MX6Q >> SabreSD Barebox image with a minimal configuration. The only things I >> had to change was device tree file -- default required to much RAM to >> instantiate, so I had to trim it down -- and this patch to avoid >> copying FTD that is already built-in. Oh, and I also had to disable >> MMU, because page table takes about 1MB or RAM(I haven't had a chance >> to spend any time trying to modify MMU code to support coarser >> 1MB-page page table). >> >> The image is intended to be used by EEs to do DRAM related >> experiments, so I do need a shell and that was the reason I went with >> full Barebox instead of trying to cram it in PBL. > > Ok, I see. I think your original patch is almost fine, only the test if > you need to copy or not needs adjustment. You have to test if the fdt is > membase < dtb < membase + memsize. If it is you have to copy it, > otherwise it should be fine to use it in place. Would that work? Sorry for dropping this conversation. Unfortunately no, I don't think this would work since in my case 'membase' is set to start of IRAM and 'memsize' is IRAM's size and since I am placing the image in IRAM that test would come positive and the code would try to copy. What if the condition was set to !RELOCATABLE && !PBL_IMAGE, so that if we know if there's no PBL and no relocation we do not copy the data? Would that be acceptable? _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
