[coreboot] SimNOW V2 LAB problem

[Marc Karasek]

I do know about the .id failure. 

This has to do with where the .id section is being placed in the rom 
image.  For some reason, I never found out why,  you need to put it at 
0xFFFFE000 or lower.  Any address from there to the top fails with the 
.id message.

I really do not like toolchain problems..

We should standardize on a set toolchain.  Maybe using the buildroot 
tool to build a toolchain we can then use to build coreboot.  Having 
something that is a "standard" would help with these issues...

Marc

*********************
Marc Karasek
MTS
Sun Microsystems
mailto:marc.karasek at sun.com
ph:770.360.6415
*********************



Myles Watson wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc.Karasek at Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Karasek at Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:34 AM
>> To: Jordan Crouse
>> Cc: Myles Watson; coreboot at coreboot.org
>> Subject: Re: SimNOW V2 LAB problem
>>
>> Good News I just tried coreboot-v3 with the same system and it does
>> compile...
>>     
>
> Yes.  It's weird.  I can even compile v2 with an identical toolchain
> (release versions) on my x86_64 box.
>
> Here's the original thread.
>
> http://coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2008-February/029993.html 
>
> Thanks,
> Myles
>
>   
>> *********************
>>     
>
>   
>> Marc Karasek
>> MTS
>> Sun Microsystems
>> mailto:marc.karasek at sun.com
>> ph:770.360.6415
>> *********************
>>
>>
>>
>> Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>     
>>> On 09/05/08 11:41 -0400, Marc Karasek wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Jordan,
>>>>
>>>> I d/l buildrom to my notebook to build a 32bit version to try it with
>>>> SimNOW.  It compiles but gets a linker error :
>>>> <coreboot: section `.ram' can't be allocated in segment 0>
>>>> Any thoughts on what could be causing this???
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> This is from coreboot itself?  That sounds really evil.
>>> We clearly have some major toolchain churn here.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>> *********************
>>>> Marc Karasek
>>>> MTS
>>>> Sun Microsystems
>>>> mailto:marc.karasek at sun.com
>>>> ph:770.360.6415
>>>> *********************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On 08/05/08 20:32 -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 03:52:21PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>> Disregard my feeble wanderings..  I was thinking about my attempt
>>>>>>>>                 
>> to
>>     
>>>>>>>> move busybox to 1.10.1 and the problems I was seeing there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think though the two are related.  Seems that uClibc 0.9.29 no
>>>>>>>>                 
>> longer
>>     
>>>>>>>> supports the toolchain wrappers for -nostdlib and forcing a linking
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> native tools (gcc/binutils) and a compiled uClibc library.  This
>>>>>>>>                 
>> was
>>     
>>>>>>>> pulled in 0.9.22 according to the uclibc FAQ.  Maybe it was just a
>>>>>>>>                 
>> one
>>     
>>>>>>>> off that FC5 still worked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> Strange.  It worked for 0.9.28 as well.  Those are the two versions
>>>>>>>               
>> I've
>>     
>>>>>>> used in buildrom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ward: You've used lab haven't you?  What toolchain do you use?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Yep, I've got LAB systems running. I build on gNewsense deltad
>>>>>>             
>> typically,
>>     
>>>>>> which is basically Ubuntu Dapper, 32 bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> It might be time for us to ping the uClibc / busybox teams for some
>>>>> guidance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jordan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>       
>
>
>