On 24.04.2009 23:01, Myles Watson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:54 PM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
On 24.04.2009 22:16, Myles Watson wrote:
Are we going to move the location of the master header? I'd like to add an error to cbfstool when it overwrites code with its data.
Why do I have the feeling that every mistake we made with LAR is repeated with CBFS? One year from now CBFS and LAR will probably have evolved to an identical feature set and the same design, have equally complex code and it will be a nightmare to debug corner cases in each of them.
I didn't think we'd run into this one in LAR. How did we fix it?
../src/southbridge/nvidia/ck804/romstrap.lds: . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x10) - (__romstrap_end - __romstrap_start); ../src/southbridge/nvidia/mcp55/romstrap.lds: . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x10) - (__romstrap_end - __romstrap_start); ../src/southbridge/sis/sis966/romstrap.lds: . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x10) - (__romstrap_end - __romstrap_start); ../src/southbridge/via/k8t890/romstrap.lds: . = (_ROMBASE + ROM_IMAGE_SIZE - 0x2c) - (__romstrap_end - __romstrap_start);
These are all close to the end. CBFS gives us more room in flash because elfboot is gone, so I say:
- lets pick something safe for these boards
Depending on how much space we're willing to lose, sacrificing the TOP-127 to TOP-16 for chipset stuff would probably be safe. TOP-15 to TOP would contain the jump and the pointer to the master header. There's one caveat, though: Short jumps can only jump -128 bytes and not further. That may or may not be a problem for startup code.
Do we have a table where these locations are written down?
- Make the tool more aware
- Document it
Excellent idea.
Regards. Carl-Daniel