[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbYMBDp3Qm8TErNrnDwn2ZTFt62+OuyyQvVE-jrnNsL6kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:38:39 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: monstr@...str.eu
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Grosen, Mark" <mgrosen@...com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: remoteproc: Load coprocessor code to the specific main memory location
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu> wrote:
> I have one small problem which is that physical address is 0x10000000
> which means that firmware entry point is the same.
This is what we do with the davinci DSPs, too.
> In rproc_load_segments is da composed from phdr->p_paddr which is
> 0x10000000.
Ok, I don't see any issue here.
> And code is designed that this load addr is offset.
Not sure exactly what do you mean by that ?
> Here is the code:
> /* go through the available ELF segments */
> for (i = 0; i < ehdr->e_phnum; i++, phdr++) {
> u32 da = phdr->p_paddr; // OFFSET 0x10000000
> u32 memsz = phdr->p_memsz;
>
> But for my case is physical address correct and it is not offset 0x10000000.
Again, I'm not sure what exactly is the issue. p_paddr is the physical
address where the image is expected, that sounds ok to me.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists