Marshall Dawson has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418 )
Change subject: cpu/x86: Introduce .near_reset_vector ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(4 comments)
Acking all the old comments on the hack PS1. Since I added .near_reset_vector as a real patch, I thought it would be better to use the same Change-ID vs. using a fresh one.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1//COMMIT_MSG Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1//COMMIT_MSG@35 PS1, Line 35: fffffe00 <_start16bit>:
Oh, that's right. […]
Acking but not sure it's important for the commit message anymore. As I mentioned in the newer version, it's reproducible by bumping C_ENV_BOOTBLOCK_SIZE over 64K.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1/src/cpu/x86/16bit/entry16.i... File src/cpu/x86/16bit/entry16.inc:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1/src/cpu/x86/16bit/entry16.i... PS1, Line 44: .type _start16bit, @function
Sure. But that's incorrect which is what I think the point of your comment. […]
Address was changed by how high I'd put it originally and that's changed now. Also CB:30855 and CB:37154 have since touched the alignment.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1/src/cpu/x86/16bit/reset16.l... File src/cpu/x86/16bit/reset16.ld:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1/src/cpu/x86/16bit/reset16.l... PS1, Line 20: _ROMTOP
If we are going to define this symbol here we should remove it from line 30?
Ack
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36418/1/src/cpu/x86/16bit/reset16.l... PS1, Line 21: _NEAR_RESET_VECTOR
[…]
Ack