[U-Boot-Users] what is wrong when calloc return bogus?
Matthew S. McClintock
mattsm at arlut.utexas.edu
Thu Nov 13 18:44:54 CET 2003
Ahh ok, we are using that code you mention. I thought for a second there
was another CVS branch or something for the ARM925 tree which did not
make sense but I thought I would ask. Our board is still failing at
malloc. Our board is _very_ similar to the Innovator 1510 and we are
using most of that code as a starting point. We are loading u-boot right
in the middle of our memory so it should have plenty of space above and
below the u-boot code for malloc. I don't have a JTAG debugger working
well with our board so I have tracked down the problems I have mentioned
using printf statements. The area of memory set aside for malloc is
valid unused memory space I just can not quite see why malloc is
failing. If you have any ideas, feel free to let me know otherwise I
will keep debugging it.
This is our output without our printf statements, however its not very
U-Boot 1.0.1 (Nov 11 2003 - 11:29:53)
U-Boot code: 11000000 -> 11014330 BSS: -> 11017FBC
Bank #0: 10000000 32 MB
Flash: 0 kB
*** Warning - bad CRC, using default environment
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 11:29, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> U-boot 1.0.0 and before for the last ... ?Six months has had an OMAP tree.
> Its really trivial to port from that to a new target. There is a
> omap1510inn target which is the Innovator. I have a couple tress which I've
> not yet merged in for custom boards which have a lot more functionality, but
> we will do that at some point, probably closer to the time they actually go
> into production.
> Cpu/arm925 is for the arm core on the OMAP15xx. I've sprinkled enough code
> in to idle the dsp but not much beyond that. The is a 926 tree also, that
> is for the omap 16xx. The CPU core is common in a lot of different SOC's,
> that's what the CPU was broke out separately. It could have been done
> differently, but the hope is to allow sharing of common code bits, not
> duplicate them.
> It seems you must be using an older tree as this kind of thing is sort of
> hard to miss if you have gone though the code.
> Richard W.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew S. McClintock [mailto:mattsm at arlut.utexas.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:20 AM
> > To: Woodruff, Richard
> > Cc: Holger Schurig; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] what is wrong when calloc return bogus?
> > On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 17:05, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> > > -- If you cloned the ARM925 tree, then you should NOT see this
> > > failure. Its probably some other kind of misconfiguration.
> > >
> > You mention an ARM925 tree, is there ARM925 tree for u-boot
> > somewhere I am missing?
> > --
> > Matthew S. McClintock <mattsm at arlut.utexas.edu>
Matthew S. McClintock <mattsm at arlut.utexas.edu>
More information about the U-Boot