Change in coreboot[master]: arch/x86: Move .id section higher

[Kyösti Mälkki (Code Review)]

Kyösti Mälkki has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499 )

Change subject: arch/x86: Move .id section higher
......................................................................

arch/x86: Move .id section higher

The (now removed) ID_SECTION_OFFSET=0x80 was actually the
secondary address flashrom and FILO are looking for. The
primary was 0x10, just below .reset.

If .id does not collide with .fit_pointer, use the higher
of the two locations.

Change-Id: I0d3a58c82efd3bbf94f4bc80ec5bbc97d5b1c109
Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki 
---
M src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/coreboot refs/changes/99/48499/1

diff --git a/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld b/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
index ad9c2ef..3a4dae7 100644
--- a/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
+++ b/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
@@ -19,14 +19,17 @@
    .id (.): {
    	KEEP(*(.id));
    }
-	_ID_SECTION = 0xffffff80 - SIZEOF(.id);
+	_ID_SECTION_END = SIZEOF(.fit_pointer) && SIZEOF(.id) > 0x28 ? 0xffffff80 : _X86_RESET_VECTOR;
+	_ID_SECTION = _ID_SECTION_END - SIZEOF(.id);

-	. = 0xffffffc0;
+	. = _FIT_POINTER;
    .fit_pointer (.): {
    	KEEP(*(.fit_pointer));
    }
+	_FIT_POINTER = SIZEOF(.fit_pointer) ? 0xffffffc0 : _X86_RESET_VECTOR;

. = 0xfffffff0;
+	_X86_RESET_VECTOR = .;
    .reset . : {
    	*(.reset);
    	. = 15;

[Arthur Heymans (Code Review)]

Arthur Heymans has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499 )

Change subject: arch/x86: Move .id section higher
......................................................................

Patch Set 2: Code-Review+2

(1 comment)

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499/2/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld 
File src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499/2/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld@2... 
PS2, Line 22: _ID_SECTION_END = SIZEOF(.fit_pointer) && SIZEOF(.id) > 0x28 ? 0xffffff80 : _X86_RESET_VECTOR;
            : 	_ID_SECTION = _ID_SECTION_END - SIZEOF(.id);
Would it make sense to document this primary/secondary ID section offset here?

[Kyösti Mälkki (Code Review)]

Hello build bot (Jenkins), Nico Huber, Julius Werner, Arthur Heymans,

I'd like you to reexamine a change. Please visit

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499

to look at the new patch set (#3).

Change subject: arch/x86: Move .id section higher
......................................................................

arch/x86: Move .id section higher

The (now removed) ID_SECTION_OFFSET=0x80 was actually the
secondary address flashrom and FILO are looking for. The
primary was 0x10, just below .reset.

If .id does not collide with .fit_pointer, use the higher
of the two locations.

Change-Id: I0d3a58c82efd3bbf94f4bc80ec5bbc97d5b1c109
Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki 
---
M src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/coreboot refs/changes/99/48499/3

[Kyösti Mälkki (Code Review)]

Kyösti Mälkki has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499 )

Change subject: arch/x86: Move .id section higher
......................................................................

Patch Set 3:

(1 comment)

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499/2/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld 
File src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499/2/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld@2... 
PS2, Line 22: _ID_SECTION_END = SIZEOF(.fit_pointer) && SIZEOF(.id) > 0x28 ? 0xffffff80 : _X86_RESET_VECTOR;
            : 	_ID_SECTION = _ID_SECTION_END - SIZEOF(.id);
> Would it make sense to document this primary/secondary ID section offset here?

Done

[Arthur Heymans (Code Review)]

Arthur Heymans has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499 )

Change subject: arch/x86: Move .id section higher
......................................................................

Patch Set 3: Code-Review+2

[Patrick Georgi (Code Review)]

Patrick Georgi has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499 )

Change subject: arch/x86: Move .id section higher
......................................................................

arch/x86: Move .id section higher

The (now removed) ID_SECTION_OFFSET=0x80 was actually the
secondary address flashrom and FILO are looking for. The
primary was 0x10, just below .reset.

If .id does not collide with .fit_pointer, use the higher
of the two locations.

Change-Id: I0d3a58c82efd3bbf94f4bc80ec5bbc97d5b1c109
Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki 
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/48499
Reviewed-by: Arthur Heymans 
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) 
---
M src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Approvals:
  build bot (Jenkins): Verified
  Arthur Heymans: Looks good to me, approved

diff --git a/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld b/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
index ad9c2ef..479259f 100644
--- a/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
+++ b/src/arch/x86/bootblock.ld
@@ -19,14 +19,19 @@
    .id (.): {
    	KEEP(*(.id));
    }
-	_ID_SECTION = 0xffffff80 - SIZEOF(.id);

-	. = 0xffffffc0;
+	/* Flashrom and FILO have two alternatives for the location of .id section. */
+	_ID_SECTION_END = SIZEOF(.fit_pointer) && SIZEOF(.id) > 0x28 ? 0xffffff80 : _X86_RESET_VECTOR;
+	_ID_SECTION = _ID_SECTION_END - SIZEOF(.id);
+
+	. = _FIT_POINTER;
    .fit_pointer (.): {
    	KEEP(*(.fit_pointer));
    }
+	_FIT_POINTER = SIZEOF(.fit_pointer) ? 0xffffffc0 : _X86_RESET_VECTOR;

. = 0xfffffff0;
+	_X86_RESET_VECTOR = .;
    .reset . : {
    	*(.reset);
    	. = 15;