[U-Boot-Users] bzip2 compression

[U-Boot-Users] bzip2 compression

[Marc Leeman]

Did anyone get the bzip2 compression working for an 8245 processor?

I think I am having a bit of a problem here :-/

I changed the board configuration to include the following

#define CFG_MONITOR_LEN         0x00030000
#define CFG_MONITOR_BASE        TEXT_BASE
#define CFG_INIT_RAM_ADDR CFG_SDRAM_BASE + CFG_MONITOR_LEN
#define CFG_INIT_RAM_END   0x2F00  
#define CFG_GBL_DATA_SIZE  128  
#define CFG_GBL_DATA_OFFSET  (CFG_INIT_RAM_END - CFG_GBL_DATA_SIZE)
#define CFG_INIT_SP_OFFSET  CFG_GBL_DATA_OFFSET

(copied from another 8245 board) and set 
#define CONFIG_BZIP2

I also set the size of the MALLOC section to

#ifdef CONFIG_BZIP2
#define CFG_MALLOC_LEN ( 2500 * 1024)  
#else
#define CFG_MALLOC_LEN (512 << 10)    
#endif

Even though my requested malloc size (2500) falls in the 12M
(CFG_INIT_RAM_END), booting a gzip compressed file works fine; while a
dump after trying to boot a bzip2 compressed file shows nothing (memory
is empty).

The same with 4 MB (unless I am mistaking, the 'slower' alg bzip2
algorithm works?).

I am certain that I am doing something stupid :) but still, ... Any
pointers?

Btw, I need the bzip2 compression because I only get 768 M in the kernel
partition and repartitioning the flash would break backwards
compatiblity.

The 2.6.7 kernel jumped to some 800 M (up from 550 or so when compared
to the 2.4.24). After all the warm encouragements over the last weeks
towards the 2.6; I decided to take the jump :)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20040805/3b9be9fc/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot-Users] bzip2 compression

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <20040805085746.GL14511@smtp.barco.com> you wrote:
> 
> Did anyone get the bzip2 compression working for an 8245 processor?

Didn't try that yet...

> The 2.6.7 kernel jumped to some 800 M (up from 550 or so when compared
> to the 2.4.24). After all the warm encouragements over the last weeks
> towards the 2.6; I decided to take the jump :)

Also be prepared that your software will run some 10...20% slower in 2.6.

Guess why we're sticking with 2.4 for at least the rest of the year.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
"A dirty mind is a joy forever."                       - Randy Kunkee