[U-Boot-Users] Fixup entries

[kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se>]

On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 01:03 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kenneth johansson [mailto:kenneth at southpole.se]
> > Sent: den 10 april 2008 01:00
> > To: Joakim Tjernlund
> > Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] Fixup entries
> > 
> > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 18:19 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kenneth Johansson [mailto:kenneth at southpole.se]
> > > > Wonder if there is something else in u-boot that use function pointers
> > > > and work by accident due to the fact that the old address in flash is
> > > > still valid.
> > >
> > > Oh yes, there are a few such pointers. And the conversion to using fixups instead
> > > is a bit lazy. Several manual relocations has only been nullified by setting
> > > gd->reloc_off=0 instead of #ifdef:ing out the relevant code. Feel
> > > free to send patches :)
> > >
> > >     Jocke
> > >
> > 
> > If by lazy you mean less error prone and obviously simpler :). clearly
> > using -mrelocatable is the smarter thing to do.
> > 
> > I had this misconception that the GOT was all that was needed for
> > relocation.
> > Could not find any useful information on what rules apply to gcc and
> > binutils for handling stuff in this fixup section.
> > 
> > Anybody have any information on this?
> 
> Nope, never found anything either. To see a working one in u-boot, look at
> mpc83xx start.S and its linker scripts.

I have it working that is not the problem the problem is that I would
like to know why it is :-)