[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/2] Make sure 85xx bss doesn't start at 0x0

[Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com>]

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 19:51 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Peter Tyser,
> 
> In message <1254843932.24664.2083.camel@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
> > 
> > I personally like the current implementation of putting the bss after
> > the entire U-Boot image.  It keeps U-Boot's code, malloc pool, stack,
> > bss, etc all in the same general area which is nice, and has the side
> > benefit that the bootpg won't be overwritten.
> 
> OK, if you think so...
> 
> > I know ORing in 0x10 is a bit ugly, but what's the real downside of
> > doing it?
> 
> Nothing. I just hate to allocate the bss at 0x0, because this is
> actually incorrect - it's the result of an address overflow /
> truncation, and pretty much misleading to someone trying to read and
> understand the code. For the linked image, it does not _look_ as if
> the bss was located _after_ the U-Boot image, it looks detached and
> allocated in low RAM.

Do you have a preference Kumar?  You're probably going to be the first
in line to have to deal with any resulting confusion:)

I personally would rank the options:
1. OR in an offset to the bss address and leave some good comments in
the linker script and commit message

2. Make the bss the last section like other PPC boards which would
result in the bootpg sometimes being overwritten

3. Put the bss at an arbitrary address

Best,
Peter