Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:25:52 +0200 From: Guillaume Ballet <gballet@gmail.com> To: Olivier Houchard <mlfbsd@ci0.org> Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@casselton.net>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: locore.S question Message-ID: <fd183dc60904010325k68e30eb5l72a219430ac7f29a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090401093815.GA23622@ci0.org> References: <20090331230945.GA8584@ci0.org> <200903312350.n2VNoAwK060973@casselton.net> <20090401093815.GA23622@ci0.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Olivier Houchard <mlfbsd@ci0.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 06:50:10PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> I was wondering why the kernel is loaded 16MB into the physical memory? >> > > Don't know in this case, but it often happens the bootloader is loaded at > the beginning of the ram, and so won't let you load the kernel there. > > Olivier > I have indeed u-boot and my intermediate kernel-loader that are loaded at the beginning of the RAM. This is not carved in stone: I will probably move the kernel-loader further away and overwrite u-boot. During platform bringup, though, I have put it here. Nothing to worry about, I was just wondering if there was some concealed requirement for the kernel to be below the first 16MB of RAM. Guillaume
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fd183dc60904010325k68e30eb5l72a219430ac7f29a>