将BSP包makefile中的RAM_HIGH_ADRS 修改为 0x08000000
编译时会报以下错误:
intALib.o(.text+0x1fc): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 noActionIntEnt
详细问题表述见http://www.vxworksos.info/ae-problem-building-a-bootapp-with-ram_high_adrs-higher-than-0x03f00000
问题描述:
I’m trying to build a bootApp in Tornado AE of a custom BSP (A
modified version of ads860 BSP). My board needs to have ROM_BASE_ADRS
= 0×00000000 and LOCAL_MEM_LOCAL_ADRS = 0×50000000. I set
RAM_HIGH_ADRS = 0×50300000, RAM_LOW_ADRS = 0×50010000, ROM_TEXT_ADRS =
0×00000100 and ROM_SIZE = 0×00280000 in both 00bsp.cdf and makefile.
When I try to build the bootApp, I always received the following
error:
ldppc -X -e usrInit -Ttext 50300000 $/(PRJ_OBJS/) $/(bootKernel_OBJS/)
-o bootApp_reloc
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o: In function
`excConnectCode’:
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0×28):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excEnt
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0×34):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excExcHandle
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0x3c):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excExit
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0×48):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excEnt
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0×54):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excExcHandle
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0x5c):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excExit
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0×68):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excEnt
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0×74):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excExcHandle
C:/Tornado_AE/target/lib/objPPC860gnuvx/excConnectALib.o(.data+0x7c):
relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 excExit
make[1]: *** [bootApp_reloc] Error 0×1
make[1]: Leaving directory `R:/bootApp/test_ads/PPC860gnu_romCopy’
make: Leaving directory `R:/bootApp/test_ads’
make: *** [bootApp_romCopy] Error 0×2
It seems that I cannot modified RAM_LOW_ADRS and RAM_HIGH_ADRS to be
higher than 0x03F00000 approximately.
Is their anyone that have an idea about the nature of my problem?
Thanks.
David
解决办法1:
My hunch is that the assembly language module excConnectALib.s, which sounds
like it provides support for connecting to the exception vectors in low
memory, uses instructions with 24-bit effective address operands. Relocating
the code where you did makes this exceed the 24 bits available to generate
the effective address.
If you have the source code, you should be able to see and possibly correct
the problem; otherwise, you are restricted to addresses below 0x00ffffff.
Out of curiosity, it sounds like the hardware engineer decided to route the
SDRAM chip selects to an extremely high part of the address space. If so,
can this be changed?
解决办法2:
http://www.openfirmware.info/pipermail/openbios/2009-April/003667.html
[OpenBIOS] QEMU OpenBIOS booting?
Steven Noonan steven at uplinklabs.netMon Apr 20 00:36:14 CEST 2009
- Previous message: [OpenBIOS] QEMU OpenBIOS booting?
- Next message: [OpenBIOS] [Qemu-devel] Re: QEMU OpenBIOS booting?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Steven Noonan <steven at uplinklabs.net> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Steven Noonan <steven at uplinklabs.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Steven Noonan <steven at uplinklabs.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Laurent Vivier <Laurent at vivier.eu> wrote: >>>> Le dimanche 19 avril 2009 à 13:33 -0700, Steven Noonan a écrit : >>>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Laurent Vivier <Laurent at vivier.eu> wrote: >>>>> > Le dimanche 19 avril 2009 à 13:14 -0700, Steven Noonan a écrit : >>>>> > The problem is in OpenBios: I put some structures in memory without >>>>> > knowing this... but this is not part of openfirmware specification. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed, this seems to be an undocumented Apple-ism. But since OSes >>>>> other than Mac OS X run on PowerPC macs (i.e. BSD, Linux), I must >>>> >>>> AIX is also using OpenFirmware / PPC / CHRP, and I think they don't care >>>> of Apple-ism. >>>> >>>>> assume that they are aware of these quirks and don't hammer those >>>>> memory locations. Since that's the case, it may be wise to conform to >>>>> what Apple's Open Firmware does, even if it _is_ undocumented. >>>> >>>> 'Yes, we can' (R). >>>> >>>>> How easy would it be to get OpenBIOS to load to the position Mac OS X >>>>> and BootX expect it to be? Based on what the book says, there are 8MB >>>>> of memory available to the Open Firmware, would that be enough for the >>>>> OpenBIOS executable image and any allocations it would need to >>>>> perform? >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> the wrong location. From the book "Mac OS X Internals: A Systems >>>>> >> Approach": >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Table 45. BootX Logical Memory Map >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Starting Address Ending Address Purpose >>>>> >> 0x00000000 0x00003FFF Exception vectors. >>>>> >> 0x00004000 0x03FFFFFF Kernel image, boot structures, and drivers. >>>>> > >>>>> > I put there some memory allocation information. >>>>> > >>>>> >> 0x04000000 0x04FFFFFF File load area. >>>>> >> 0x05000000 0x053FFFFF Simple read-time cache for file system >>>>> >> metadata. Cache hits are serviced from memory, whereas cache misses >>>>> >> result in disk access. >>>>> >> 0x05400000 0x055FFFFF Malloc zone: a simple memory allocator is >>>>> >> implemented in BootX's libclite subproject. The starting and ending >>>>> >> addresses of this range define the block of memory used by the >>>>> >> allocator. >>>>> > >>>>> > BootX should use openBIOS functions to allocate memory (as Yaboot >>>>> > does...) >>>>> >>>>> Apparently BootX is tricky that way. I don't have the BootX source >>>>> code, so I can't verify the author's statement, but I would guess he >>>>> knows what he's talking about. >>>> >>>> Look here: >>>> >>>> http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/BootX-81.tar.gz >>>> >>>> (You need an Apple Developer ID) >>>> >>> >>> Aha. From sl.h: >>> >>> /* >>> >>> Memory Map: assumed 96 MB (temporarily bumping to 112 MB for 4359362) >>> >>> Physical Address >>> >>> Open Firmware Version 3x, 4x, ... >>> 00000000 - 00003FFF : Exception Vectors >>> 00004000 - 057FFFFF : Free Memory >>> // 05800000 - 05FFFFFF : OF Image (top 8 MB reserved) [96 MB map] >>> 06800000 - 06FFFFFF : OF Image (top 8 MB reserved) [112 MB map] >>> >>> >>> Logical Address >>> >>> // 96 MB map (currently unused - 4363357 tracks re-adoption) >>> 00000000 - 00003FFF : Exception Vectors >>> 00004000 - 03FFFFFF : Kernel Image, Boot Struct and Drivers (~64 MB) >>> 04000000 - 04FFFFFF : File Load Area (16 MB) [80 MB] >>> 05000000 - 053FFFFF : FS Cache (4 MB) [84 MB] >>> 05400000 - 055FFFFF : Malloc Zone (2 MB) [86 MB] >>> 05600000 - 057FFFFF : BootX Image (2 MB) [88 MB] >>> 05800000 - 05FFFFFF : Unused/OF (8 MB) [96 MB] >>> >>> // 112 MB map (per 4359362) >>> 00000000 - 00003FFF : Exception Vectors >>> 00004000 - 03FFFFFF : Kernel Image, Boot Struct and Drivers (~64 MB) >>> 04000000 - 05FFFFFF : File Load Area (32 MB) [96 MB] >>> 06000000 - 063FFFFF : FS Cache (4 MB) [100 MB] >>> 06400000 - 065FFFFF : Malloc Zone (2 MB) [102 MB] >>> 06600000 - 067FFFFF : BootX Image (2 MB) [104 MB] >>> 06800000 - 06FFFFFF : Unused/OF (8 MB) [112 MB] >>> */ >>> >>> >>> The 96MB map looks like what we're trying to conform to. I wonder what >>> this "4359362" they refer to is? An internal bug number or document >>> number? >>> >> >> OK, so I guess we should use the 112MB map, since the other one says >> "currently unused", which reads to me as "deprecated". >> >> So I'm looking into changing it to load to the position Apple's Open >> Firmware would. Do these values seem right to you? (it's intentionally >> space-smashed to prevent someone applying this to mainline) >> >> diff --git a/arch/ppc/qemu/ldscript b/arch/ppc/qemu/ldscript >> index 66fcbcd..8fdf654 100644 >> --- a/arch/ppc/qemu/ldscript >> +++ b/arch/ppc/qemu/ldscript >> @@ -3,15 +3,15 @@ OUTPUT_ARCH(powerpc) >> >> /* Initial load address >> */ >> -BASE_ADDR = 0xfff00000; >> +BASE_ADDR = 0x06800000; >> >> -/* As NVRAM is at 0xfff04000, the .text needs to be after that >> +/* As NVRAM is at 0x06804000, the .text needs to be after that >> */ >> -TEXT_ADDR = 0xfff08000; >> +TEXT_ADDR = 0x06808000; >> >> /* Hard reset vector address >> */ >> -HRESET_ADDR = 0xfffffffc; >> +HRESET_ADDR = 0x06ffffff; >> >> CSTACK_SIZE = 32768; /* client stack size */ > > With the above numbers, I get linker problems: > > target/arch/ppc/qemu/start.o: In function `vector__0x300': > (.text.vectors+0x384): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 > against `.text.vectors'+c > target/arch/ppc/qemu/start.o: In function `vector__0x400': > (.text.vectors+0x484): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_ADDR24 > against `.text.vectors'+c > > I don't see why it'd do that. > What the hell? Why would this change resolve it? diff --git a/arch/ppc/qemu/start.S b/arch/ppc/qemu/start.S index 66df9a2..108fd9b 100644 --- a/arch/ppc/qemu/start.S +++ b/arch/ppc/qemu/start.S @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ VECTOR( 0x300, "DSI" ): addi r3,r3,LO(dsi_exception) mtctr r3 bctrl - ba exception_return + b exception_return VECTOR( 0x400, "ISI" ): EXCEPTION_PREAMBLE @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ VECTOR( 0x400, "ISI" ): addi r3,r3,LO(isi_exception) mtctr r3 bctrl - ba exception_return + b exception_return ILLEGAL_VECTOR( 0x500 ) ILLEGAL_VECTOR( 0x600 ) >> >> The only issue with doing things this way is now to figure out what to >> change this to: >> >> #define FREE_BASE 0x00004000 >> >> My first thought was to utilize all 8MB of the space that Apple says >> we can have, and use any space after the OpenBIOS image. My second >> thought was: how do we know where the OpenBIOS executable image ends? >> >> Any ideas? >> >
在尝试构建BootApp时遇到R_PPC_ADDR24重定位截断错误,修改BSP包makefile中RAM_HIGH_ADRS为0x08000000后,编译时出现问题。错误源于excConnectALib.o中的数据段重定位超出了24位有效地址限制。解决方案可能涉及检查汇编源码并调整地址,或者查阅相关资源如OpenBIOS邮件列表中的讨论。
4万+

被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?



