[coreboot] [PATCH] more Kconfig default fixes

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Thu Oct 15 14:08:26 CEST 2009

On 15.10.2009 13:04, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> ron minnich wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So I guess the question is how should we make sure the stack and heap are
>>> sized correctly.  Using malloc to allocate the memory for lzma makes sense,
>>> but it is used in CAR too, so that complicates our decision.
>> lzma decompressor gets a void * from the caller. Caller, if CAR, uses
>> on-stack pointer. RAM code can, if desired,
>> use malloc'ed memory?
> We never call lzma while in CAR. Now that would be kind of silly, would it?

Well, originally ulmza() was designed to be runnable in CAR on the OLPC.
That's why I picked a scratch pad size which would allow pretty good
compression and still fit well into the stack we had during CAR on these
boards. Part of the motivation may have been a misunderstanding, this
was one of my first coreboot patches (or even the very first one).

I don't care where ulzma places its scratch space as long as it can get
enough of it. If someone wants to use malloc() instead, check the
variable mallocneeds which has the exact allocation size needed (that
size depends on the parameters picked during compression).


Developer quote of the week: 
"We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers."

More information about the coreboot mailing list