coreboot

coreboot@coreboot.org

39717 discussions

[LinuxBIOS] ENTRY(_start)
by yhlu 13 Nov '05

13 Nov '05

is the ENTRY (_start) in arch/i386/init/ldscript.lb and c_start.S needed? the Normal image don't need to include entry16.inc, So ... YH

1 0

Re: [LinuxBIOS] results in romcc
by Lu, Yinghai 12 Nov '05

12 Nov '05

Any use? For comparison? YH -----Original Message----- From: ebiederman(a)lnxi.com [mailto:ebiederman@lnxi.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:31 PM To: Lu, Yinghai Cc: Ronald G Minnich; Stefan Reinauer; linuxbios(a)openbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] results in romcc "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)amd.com> writes: > Stephan, > > Can you remove util/romcc/results/*? You want to remove the expected output of the romcc regression tests? Eric

3 2

[LinuxBIOS] def addcpupath
by Lu, Yinghai 12 Nov '05

12 Nov '05

Why is there two "def addcpupath( " in util/newconfig/config.g? YH

1 0

[LinuxBIOS] results in romcc
by Lu, Yinghai 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

Stephan, Can you remove util/romcc/results/*? YH

2 1

Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken?
by Lu, Yinghai 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

Why not use gcc 3.4....? YH -----Original Message----- From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:14 PM To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? I understand what you say. It matches what I see in the code. However, my questions are not addressed, or I didn't understand your explaination. First, I'm using redhat Linux 9.0, my gcc -v output like this: "gcc version 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)", I hopt it is good enough to build LinuxBIOS. Second, tyan/s2891 build generate a section called .rodata.str1.32. The linker script doesn't have anything explict to handle this section. I think the Linker just patch this section at end of the last section that are explicitly specified in the Linker script. In tyan/s2891 build, it is .id section. The .id section is 0x70 bytes below .reset section. The .rodata.str1.32 is larger than 0x70 bytes. Therefor, .rodata.str1.32 will overlap with .reset section and cause the build to break. Are you saying my compiler caused this issue? Third, I understand _start must be in the last 64K, are you saying objcopy would enforce this? To be more specific on my quesiton, when I'm useing ROMCC, my crt0.o is larger than 64K, objcopy would compress certain portion of crt0.o and make sure _start is in the last 64k? Thanks beneo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)amd.com> To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > OK, Let me explain that again: > > Final LinuxBIOS image = VGABIOS ROM + Normal Image + FallBack Image > > FallBack Image = PayLoad + linuxbios_ram.n2v + linuxbios_rom > > Linuxbios_rom = crt0.S + init.o + id + reset_vector > > Reset_vector is sit on 0xfffffff0, and at the very beginning, reset > happen, the ROM only can be accessed in 64K range. So need to make sure > _start in crt0.S need to stay in last 64 address range. > > The init.o will include cache_as_ram_auto.c in the fallback amd64_main, > it will enabled the access 4M flash access. > > When We were using ROMCC, the crt0.S will be very bigger (it include > auto.inc), So for 8 way or 4 way system, It will push out the _start out > of last 64K. > > When We are using CAR, the init.o is all the same size for 8way and 2 > way system. ( because CAR use gcc, and have real stack for functional > call, ROMCC can not have stack because of limited regs) > > Another problem is if put set ROM_IMAGE_SIZE too big, the current lds > can not curbe crt0.S to stay in last 64K too... > > So you need to set your ROM_IMAGE_SIZE carefully for FALLBACK image. > If it is too small, it could not fit Payload > +linuxbios_ram.n2v+linuxbios.rom > > It it is too big, _start in crt0.S will out of last 64K.... > > Later we could modify .lds to force crt0.S and init.o stay in last > 64K.... > > Or change Linuxbios_rom = init.o + crt0.S + id + reset_vector.... ( need > make sure enable_rom in 64K too...) > > But is not high priority, because crt0.S+init.o for CAR are always > small.... > > Other problem is you must use Linux otherthan Redhat and Suse???? > And you need to upgrade your gcc > > YH > > -----Original Message----- > From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:54 AM > To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich > Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > Thanks. It works on one of issues I have encountered. > > My immidiate question is why my ROM_IMAGE_SIZE with larger value 0x20000 > won't work, but with 0x16380 would work? If you don't tell me this, I > probably would never be able to figure out. > > My have another issue, It looks like a bug in target tyan/s2891. I'm > trying > to build tyan/s2891. No matter what I change, I always get a build error > like: > --- > gcc -m32 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -static -o linuxbios -T ldscript.ld > crt0.o > init.o > /usr/bin/ld: section .rodata.str1.32 [fffbff80 -> fffc0091] overlaps > section > .reset [fffbfff0 -> fffbffff] > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > make[1]: *** [linuxbios] Error 1 > --- > > Then I looked at ldscript file, it included > southbridge/nvidia/ck804/id.lds > file, which looks like this: > --- > SECTIONS { > . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x80) - (__id_end - > __id_start); > .id (.): { > *(.id) > } > } > --- > > There is no linker script would arrange section .rodata.str1.32. I guess > that just makes linker to patch section .rodata.str1.32 at end of .id > section, which caused the overlap with .reset section. > > This looks to me is a bug in tyan/s2891. How do I fix this? is that OK > to > remove nvidia/ck804/id.lds? > > thanks > > beneo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)AMD.COM> > To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> > Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:39 PM > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > > > Please change ROM_IMAGE_SIZE in romimage "fallback" section to 0x16380 > > > > YH > > > > > > > > -- > > LinuxBIOS mailing list > > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > -- > LinuxBIOS mailing list > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

4 4

[LinuxBIOS] Problems with ADLO
by Anton Borisov 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

Hello. I have ADLO shipped with LinuxBIOS v1. My working box has bcc: version 0.16.14 gcc version 3.3.4 as86 version: 0.16.15 I tried to compile bochs rom like this: # cd ~/ADLO/bochs/bios # make distclean # make gcc -E rombios.c > _rombios_.c rombios.c:2662:50: pasting "(" and ""ata_cmd_data_in : read error\n"" does not give a valid preprocessing token rombios.c:2665:84: pasting "(" and ""ata_cmd_data_in : DRQ not set (status %02x)\n"" does not give a valid preprocessing token rombios.c dated 01 May, 2005, size 276323 (freebios--devel--1.0--base-0.tar.bz2). Anyone succeded to compile ADLO recently? -- Sincerely, Anton Borisov

2 1

[LinuxBIOS] DOC vs CF
by Adam Talbot 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

Can any one give me a quick run down and the Up/Downs of using a DOC or CF as the primary boot device in a Linux BIOS system. I know there are both based on nand technology, and I know that the CF is on the ATA bus... I know that both have a limited number of writes, but that is where i run out of info. What else is there, why would some one use a CF or DOC over the other? -Adam

2 1

Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken?
by Lu, Yinghai 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

Did you use my new ldscripts.lds? Also you need to change you FALLBACK_SIZE in MB Option.lb to 0x40000 YH -----Original Message----- From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:26 PM To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? thanks for the help, otherwise, I probably would spend days to figure out. I create a cace_as_ram.lds in my directory which handles the section not in standard lds, I can build now. Only mystery still remain is why when I have ROM_IMAGE_SIZE set to 0x20000 in fallback, it won't build, but set to smaller 0x16380, it builds. It seems caused objcopy to generate a different size of linuxbios.strip file. I think objcopy should have nothing to do with it. but something went wrong before that. It should be a bug in the code, I just don't know what it is. Thanks beneo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)AMD.COM> To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > You can change section name in arch/i386/Config.lb if you have strange > compiler that produce werid section name. > > YH > > -----Original Message----- > From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:22 PM > To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich > Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > Is gcc 3.4 a requirement? > > If not, I would save the trouble and stay with 3.2.2. I didn't encounter > any > trouble building LinuxBIOS using this version until now. In another > word, > are you absulutely sure the issue I have stated is caused by gcc 3.2.2 > > Thanks > > beneo > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)AMD.COM> > To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> > Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:17 PM > Subject: RE: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > > Why not use gcc 3.4....? > > YH > > -----Original Message----- > From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:14 PM > To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich > Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > I understand what you say. It matches what I see in the code. However, > my > questions are not addressed, or I didn't understand your explaination. > > First, I'm using redhat Linux 9.0, my gcc -v output like this: "gcc > version > 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)", I hopt it is good enough to > build > LinuxBIOS. > > Second, tyan/s2891 build generate a section called .rodata.str1.32. The > linker script doesn't have anything explict to handle this section. I > think > the Linker just patch this section at end of the last section that are > explicitly specified in the Linker script. In tyan/s2891 build, it is > .id > section. The .id section is 0x70 bytes below .reset section. The > .rodata.str1.32 is larger than 0x70 bytes. Therefor, .rodata.str1.32 > will > overlap with .reset section and cause the build to break. Are you saying > my > compiler caused this issue? > > Third, I understand _start must be in the last 64K, are you saying > objcopy > would enforce this? To be more specific on my quesiton, when I'm useing > ROMCC, my crt0.o is larger than 64K, objcopy would compress certain > portion > of crt0.o and make sure _start is in the last 64k? > > Thanks > > beneo > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)amd.com> > To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> > Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > > > OK, Let me explain that again: > > > > Final LinuxBIOS image = VGABIOS ROM + Normal Image + FallBack Image > > > > FallBack Image = PayLoad + linuxbios_ram.n2v + linuxbios_rom > > > > Linuxbios_rom = crt0.S + init.o + id + reset_vector > > > > Reset_vector is sit on 0xfffffff0, and at the very beginning, reset > > happen, the ROM only can be accessed in 64K range. So need to make > sure > > _start in crt0.S need to stay in last 64 address range. > > > > The init.o will include cache_as_ram_auto.c in the fallback > amd64_main, > > it will enabled the access 4M flash access. > > > > When We were using ROMCC, the crt0.S will be very bigger (it include > > auto.inc), So for 8 way or 4 way system, It will push out the _start > out > > of last 64K. > > > > When We are using CAR, the init.o is all the same size for 8way and 2 > > way system. ( because CAR use gcc, and have real stack for functional > > call, ROMCC can not have stack because of limited regs) > > > > Another problem is if put set ROM_IMAGE_SIZE too big, the current lds > > can not curbe crt0.S to stay in last 64K too... > > > > So you need to set your ROM_IMAGE_SIZE carefully for FALLBACK image. > > If it is too small, it could not fit Payload > > +linuxbios_ram.n2v+linuxbios.rom > > > > It it is too big, _start in crt0.S will out of last 64K.... > > > > Later we could modify .lds to force crt0.S and init.o stay in last > > 64K.... > > > > Or change Linuxbios_rom = init.o + crt0.S + id + reset_vector.... ( > need > > make sure enable_rom in 64K too...) > > > > But is not high priority, because crt0.S+init.o for CAR are always > > small.... > > > > Other problem is you must use Linux otherthan Redhat and Suse???? > > And you need to upgrade your gcc > > > > YH > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] > > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:54 AM > > To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich > > Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org > > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > > > Thanks. It works on one of issues I have encountered. > > > > My immidiate question is why my ROM_IMAGE_SIZE with larger value > 0x20000 > > won't work, but with 0x16380 would work? If you don't tell me this, I > > probably would never be able to figure out. > > > > My have another issue, It looks like a bug in target tyan/s2891. I'm > > trying > > to build tyan/s2891. No matter what I change, I always get a build > error > > like: > > --- > > gcc -m32 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -static -o linuxbios -T ldscript.ld > > crt0.o > > init.o > > /usr/bin/ld: section .rodata.str1.32 [fffbff80 -> fffc0091] overlaps > > section > > .reset [fffbfff0 -> fffbffff] > > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > > make[1]: *** [linuxbios] Error 1 > > --- > > > > Then I looked at ldscript file, it included > > southbridge/nvidia/ck804/id.lds > > file, which looks like this: > > --- > > SECTIONS { > > . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x80) - (__id_end - > > __id_start); > > .id (.): { > > *(.id) > > } > > } > > --- > > > > There is no linker script would arrange section .rodata.str1.32. I > guess > > that just makes linker to patch section .rodata.str1.32 at end of .id > > section, which caused the overlap with .reset section. > > > > This looks to me is a bug in tyan/s2891. How do I fix this? is that OK > > to > > remove nvidia/ck804/id.lds? > > > > thanks > > > > beneo > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)AMD.COM> > > To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" > <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> > > Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:39 PM > > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > > > > > > Please change ROM_IMAGE_SIZE in romimage "fallback" section to > 0x16380 > > > > > > YH > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > LinuxBIOS mailing list > > > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > > > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > > > > > > -- > > LinuxBIOS mailing list > > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > > > -- > LinuxBIOS mailing list > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

2 1

Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken?
by Lu, Yinghai 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

You can change section name in arch/i386/Config.lb if you have strange compiler that produce werid section name. YH -----Original Message----- From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:22 PM To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? Is gcc 3.4 a requirement? If not, I would save the trouble and stay with 3.2.2. I didn't encounter any trouble building LinuxBIOS using this version until now. In another word, are you absulutely sure the issue I have stated is caused by gcc 3.2.2 Thanks beneo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)AMD.COM> To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:17 PM Subject: RE: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? Why not use gcc 3.4....? YH -----Original Message----- From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:14 PM To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? I understand what you say. It matches what I see in the code. However, my questions are not addressed, or I didn't understand your explaination. First, I'm using redhat Linux 9.0, my gcc -v output like this: "gcc version 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)", I hopt it is good enough to build LinuxBIOS. Second, tyan/s2891 build generate a section called .rodata.str1.32. The linker script doesn't have anything explict to handle this section. I think the Linker just patch this section at end of the last section that are explicitly specified in the Linker script. In tyan/s2891 build, it is .id section. The .id section is 0x70 bytes below .reset section. The .rodata.str1.32 is larger than 0x70 bytes. Therefor, .rodata.str1.32 will overlap with .reset section and cause the build to break. Are you saying my compiler caused this issue? Third, I understand _start must be in the last 64K, are you saying objcopy would enforce this? To be more specific on my quesiton, when I'm useing ROMCC, my crt0.o is larger than 64K, objcopy would compress certain portion of crt0.o and make sure _start is in the last 64k? Thanks beneo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)amd.com> To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > OK, Let me explain that again: > > Final LinuxBIOS image = VGABIOS ROM + Normal Image + FallBack Image > > FallBack Image = PayLoad + linuxbios_ram.n2v + linuxbios_rom > > Linuxbios_rom = crt0.S + init.o + id + reset_vector > > Reset_vector is sit on 0xfffffff0, and at the very beginning, reset > happen, the ROM only can be accessed in 64K range. So need to make sure > _start in crt0.S need to stay in last 64 address range. > > The init.o will include cache_as_ram_auto.c in the fallback amd64_main, > it will enabled the access 4M flash access. > > When We were using ROMCC, the crt0.S will be very bigger (it include > auto.inc), So for 8 way or 4 way system, It will push out the _start out > of last 64K. > > When We are using CAR, the init.o is all the same size for 8way and 2 > way system. ( because CAR use gcc, and have real stack for functional > call, ROMCC can not have stack because of limited regs) > > Another problem is if put set ROM_IMAGE_SIZE too big, the current lds > can not curbe crt0.S to stay in last 64K too... > > So you need to set your ROM_IMAGE_SIZE carefully for FALLBACK image. > If it is too small, it could not fit Payload > +linuxbios_ram.n2v+linuxbios.rom > > It it is too big, _start in crt0.S will out of last 64K.... > > Later we could modify .lds to force crt0.S and init.o stay in last > 64K.... > > Or change Linuxbios_rom = init.o + crt0.S + id + reset_vector.... ( need > make sure enable_rom in 64K too...) > > But is not high priority, because crt0.S+init.o for CAR are always > small.... > > Other problem is you must use Linux otherthan Redhat and Suse???? > And you need to upgrade your gcc > > YH > > -----Original Message----- > From: beneo [mailto:beneo@comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:54 AM > To: Lu, Yinghai; Ronald G Minnich > Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > Thanks. It works on one of issues I have encountered. > > My immidiate question is why my ROM_IMAGE_SIZE with larger value 0x20000 > won't work, but with 0x16380 would work? If you don't tell me this, I > probably would never be able to figure out. > > My have another issue, It looks like a bug in target tyan/s2891. I'm > trying > to build tyan/s2891. No matter what I change, I always get a build error > like: > --- > gcc -m32 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -static -o linuxbios -T ldscript.ld > crt0.o > init.o > /usr/bin/ld: section .rodata.str1.32 [fffbff80 -> fffc0091] overlaps > section > .reset [fffbfff0 -> fffbffff] > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > make[1]: *** [linuxbios] Error 1 > --- > > Then I looked at ldscript file, it included > southbridge/nvidia/ck804/id.lds > file, which looks like this: > --- > SECTIONS { > . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x80) - (__id_end - > __id_start); > .id (.): { > *(.id) > } > } > --- > > There is no linker script would arrange section .rodata.str1.32. I guess > that just makes linker to patch section .rodata.str1.32 at end of .id > section, which caused the overlap with .reset section. > > This looks to me is a bug in tyan/s2891. How do I fix this? is that OK > to > remove nvidia/ck804/id.lds? > > thanks > > beneo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu(a)AMD.COM> > To: "beneo" <beneo(a)comcast.net>; "Ronald G Minnich" <rminnich(a)lanl.gov> > Cc: <linuxbios(a)openbios.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:39 PM > Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? > > > > Please change ROM_IMAGE_SIZE in romimage "fallback" section to 0x16380 > > > > YH > > > > > > > > -- > > LinuxBIOS mailing list > > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios > > > > > -- > LinuxBIOS mailing list > LinuxBIOS(a)openbios.org > http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

2 1

Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken?
by Lu, Yinghai 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

With this change, We can fix all K8 MB ROM_IMAGE_SIZE=0x20000 #128K FALLBACK_SIZE=0x40000 #256K [ffff0000, ffffffff) : rom (64K) [fffe0000, fffeffff) : ram (64K) [fffc0000, fffdffff) : payload (128K) too big... XIP_ROM_SIZE will be equal to ROM_IMAGE_SIZE... All fixed address.... YH -----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-bounces(a)openbios.org [mailto:linuxbios-bounces@openbios.org] On Behalf Of Lu, Yinghai Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:58 PM To: beneo; Ronald G Minnich Cc: linuxbios(a)openbios.org Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] Build broken? With attach lds, the linuxbios_rom will be fixed on 0x0xffff0000 for fallback image. Anyway address is fixed, leave last 64k for crt0.s and init.o now.... YH

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot