[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/2] Make sure 85xx bss doesn't start at 0x0

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Peter Tyser wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 19:51 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Peter Tyser,
>>
>> In message <1254843932.24664.2083.camel at localhost.localdomain> you  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I personally like the current implementation of putting the bss  
>>> after
>>> the entire U-Boot image.  It keeps U-Boot's code, malloc pool,  
>>> stack,
>>> bss, etc all in the same general area which is nice, and has the  
>>> side
>>> benefit that the bootpg won't be overwritten.
>>
>> OK, if you think so...
>>
>>> I know ORing in 0x10 is a bit ugly, but what's the real downside of
>>> doing it?
>>
>> Nothing. I just hate to allocate the bss at 0x0, because this is
>> actually incorrect - it's the result of an address overflow /
>> truncation, and pretty much misleading to someone trying to read and
>> understand the code. For the linked image, it does not _look_ as if
>> the bss was located _after_ the U-Boot image, it looks detached and
>> allocated in low RAM.
>
> Do you have a preference Kumar?  You're probably going to be the first
> in line to have to deal with any resulting confusion:)
>
> I personally would rank the options:
> 1. OR in an offset to the bss address and leave some good comments in
> the linker script and commit message
>
> 2. Make the bss the last section like other PPC boards which would
> result in the bootpg sometimes being overwritten
>
> 3. Put the bss at an arbitrary address

I don't have a preference, but maybe I missed the answer to my  
question about where does 44x put the BSS.

Is it possible to put it before TEXTBASE?

- k