From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MIqUr-00014t-67 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:52:09 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MIqUo-00013t-J1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:52:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MIqUl-00010r-02 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:52:06 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57192 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MIqUk-00010n-P0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:52:02 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:33426) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MIqUk-0000mQ-9T for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:52:02 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2009 16:52:00 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A98D534C6A for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:58:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20090622204111.GA7871@thorin> References: <20090621181748.GA21152@thorin> <20090621185009.GB21495@thorin> <1245611299.4250.13.camel@mj> <20090621193333.GD21827@thorin> <20090622123135.GA29332@thorin> <1245699797.2561.4.camel@mj> <20090622204111.GA7871@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:51:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1245703903.9815.18.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.2 (2.26.2-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH] define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 0 on non-ieee1275 (Re: does module area require alignment? (Re: [PATCH] i386-qemu port)) X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:52:06 -0000 On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 22:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 03:43:17PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:31 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Well it seems that OLPC (i386-ieee1275) needs alignment, but coreboot doesn't. > > > It must be some OFW-specific oddity. > > > > > > This patch makes the alignment ieee1275-specific on i386. > > > > We can define GRUB_MOD_ALIGN to 1 for such architectures and keep using > > ALIGN_UP (or remove ALIGN_UP - it doesn't matter). The value of 0 for > > GRUB_MOD_ALIGN is meaningless, but the value of 1 has a meaning - align > > to a byte boundary. > > Good idea, I just did that. I didn't remove ALIGN_UP, since it's harmless. By the way, it turns out that PowerPC needs alignment of 4 bytes. That would allow me to find the exact minimal gap and see if it's influenced by anything. The gap is between 0x8c50 and 0x8c60. You may want to use 4 byte alignment too. It's a good thing to align 32-bit addresses in the ELF headers. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin