This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: redboot images difference
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:24 +0300, Nickolay wrote:
> Mark Salter wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 21:36 +0300, Nickolay wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mark Salter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 19:07 +0300, Nickolay wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What version is more correctly for IXDP425 board?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I suspect they are both correct. It looks like the precompiled
> >>>elf was for a RAM based RedBoot and the built one is ROM (flash)
> >>>based.
> >>>
> >>>--Mark
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hmm. I don't think so. See:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Ahh, right.
> >
> >2004-09-07 Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
> >
> > * include/pkgconf/mlt_arm_xscale_ixdp425_ram.mlt: Move .text to 0x80000.
> >
> >This is what you are seeing. The text address moved between versions.
> >
> >--Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Hmm, with ELF version it's doesn't matter! But what with .bin version?
> Because .bin is true FLT format, and addressing is related(not
> absolute), how it is working when writed on the flash that mapped on the
> 0x50000000 ?
> I don't understand that.
>
I think you are looking at RAM-based RedBoot images (well, at least
the .elf files were). You need the ROM RedBoot image put in flash.
The CPU comes out of reset with the flash mapped at 0x0. Soon after
reset, RedBoot sets a bit in the bus controller which remaps the
flash to 0x50000000. The ROM RedBoot is linked to run at 0x50000000
but the early startup code is position independent so it can run
from 0x0. hal/arm/xscale/ixdp425/current/include/hal_platform_setup.h
has this early startup code.
--Mark
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss