<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 2/26/10 2:23 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B872283.206@coresystems.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 2/25/10 11:44 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2831fecf1002251444qd88a126l70300bcba401a8f3@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In
case
someone wants to look into this. The attached patch tries to do<br>
relocable coreboot_ram. It does not work. It looks like dynamic linker
does not<br>
fix call to hardware main in the c_start.o - reason is unknown.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Relocating coreboot_ram seems like a great idea. It seems
like
there was a lot of discussion on the mailing list with v3 about PIC and
why it couldn't work for us. My memory about it is fuzzy now, but a
little searching might turn something up.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The idea sounds incredibly sweet. <br>
<br>
But lets make sure we gain from it in the end...<br>
Relocating coreboot_ram would safe us two 1MB sized memcpy on the
resume path, so we would safe at least 200 microseconds of boot time in
the case we're resuming. (assuming memory is 6.4G/s, DDR2-800 aka
PC2-6400) .... 0.2milliseconds of 400+... worth the complexity?<br>
</blockquote>
minus the time added needed by the linker for the linking.. <br>
<br>
How does linking go with lzma?<br>
- do the relocations require more RAM? How much?<br>
- can the sections and relocations be lzma'ed together? or are they
separate files in CBFS?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>