Off by eight.

I'm generating an new CPU, SB and motherboard.  I got the build up and 
running, but my image is off by eight bytes.  The reset code that should be 
at the top of the ROM (xxxxFFF0) is at xxxxFFF8, so I'm short 8 bytes in 
the ROM image file.

Anyone have a clue as to what I should look at to trace this down?

Jordan

[ron minnich]

what version of linuxbios?

ron

[e-mail] writes:
> I'm generating an new CPU, SB and motherboard.  I got the build up and running,
> but my image is off by eight bytes.  The reset code that should be at the top of
>
> the ROM (xxxxFFF0) is at xxxxFFF8, so I'm short 8 bytes in the ROM image file.
>
> Anyone have a clue as to what I should look at to trace this down?

Are you certain you don't have the 32 bit reset code, instead of the 16bit code?

Eric

[Jordan Archer]

I'm pretty sure that it's not 32 bit reset code.  The problem appears if I 
try to build an image without a fallback.

Jordan

At 02:41 PM 11/18/2003, you wrote:
> [e-mail] writes:
> > I'm generating an new CPU, SB and motherboard.  I got the build up and
>
> running,
> > but my image is off by eight bytes.  The reset code that should be at
>
> the top of
> > the ROM (xxxxFFF0) is at xxxxFFF8, so I'm short 8 bytes in the ROM
>
> image file.
> > Anyone have a clue as to what I should look at to trace this down?
>
> Are you certain you don't have the 32 bit reset code, instead of the 16bit 
> code?
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxbios mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jordan Archer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that it's not 32 bit reset code.  The problem appears if I 
> try to build an image without a fallback.

oh. When I try to build an image without a fallback (this part is 
counterintuitive) I always just build a fallback. Possibly that's the 
wrong thing to do :0)

ron

[Stefan Reinauer]

* ron minnich  [031118 23:52]:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jordan Archer wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that it's not 32 bit reset code.  The problem appears if I 
> > try to build an image without a fallback.
>
> oh. When I try to build an image without a fallback (this part is 
> counterintuitive) I always just build a fallback. Possibly that's the 
> wrong thing to do :0)

It contains a small amount of overhead that is probably neglectable.
I played with building fallback-free images as well before just building
Fallback-only images instead. The concept is the same, just the code
that is used due to the make rules might change one or the other minor
startup file.

Stefan