From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen/arm: build as zImage Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:58:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20121127135842.GA51942@ocelot.phlegethon.org> References: <1353696510.29837.19.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Anthony Perard , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 12:11 +0000 on 27 Nov (1354018273), Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 18:04 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > The zImage format is extremely simple: it only consists of a magic > > > number and 2 addresses in a specific position (see > > > http://www.simtec.co.uk/products/SWLINUX/files/booting_article.html#d0e309). > > > > > > Some bootloaders expect a zImage; considering that it doesn't cost us > > > much to build Xen compatible with the format, make it so. > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - code style; > > > - pass 0 a start address. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini > > > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/head.S b/xen/arch/arm/head.S > > > index 25c4cfe..347ddcf 100644 > > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/head.S > > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/head.S > > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ > > > #include > > > #include > > > > > > +#define ZIMAGE_MAGIC_NUMBER 0x016f2818 > > > + > > > #define PT_PT 0xe7f /* nG=1, AF=1, SH=10, AP=01, NS=1, ATTR=111, T=1, P=1 */ > > > #define PT_MEM 0xe7d /* nG=1, AF=1, SH=10, AP=01, NS=1, ATTR=111, T=0, P=1 */ > > > #define PT_DEV 0xe71 /* nG=1, AF=1, SH=10, AP=01, NS=1, ATTR=100, T=0, P=1 */ > > > @@ -52,6 +54,18 @@ > > > * or the initial pagetable code below will need adjustment. */ > > > .global start > > > start: > > > + > > > + /* zImage magic header, see: > > > + * http://www.simtec.co.uk/products/SWLINUX/files/booting_article.html#d0e309 > > > + */ > > > + .skip 0x20 > > > > This was better as the explicit repeated nops, as it stands it's not at > > all clear that you can start executing at start. It might even rely on > > the specific assemblers behaviour? > > > > Also this wasn't what Tim suggested, which was branch then skip, not > > skip then branch. I think the nops are better for consistency with Linux > > though. > > You are right. Thinking twice about it, I would rather keep the code as > it was originally, for consistency with Linux. Does consistency with linux buy us anything (beyond untidy code)? I very much prefer the other way. And if we do need to fill with nops, why 7 repeated and one standalone? Tim.