BUG=chrome-os-partner:32112
BRANCH=None
TEST=Built secmon which had this type of relocation.
Change-Id: Ie367c348fbf59465e238e5fa60f217f5373501b3
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@chromium.org>
Original-Commit-Id: a754bc1fe39c19ab8b2f7be9648cccb06156b0ef
Original-Change-Id: If170d9e270daf3153e92d16c06516915c727e930
Original-Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <adurbin@chromium.org>
Original-Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/218843
Original-Reviewed-by: Furquan Shaikh <furquan@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/8807
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
Add support for creating ARM rmodules. There are 3 expected
relocations for an ARM rmodule:
- R_ARM_ABS32
- R_ARM_THM_PC22
- R_ARM_THM_JUMP24
R_ARM_ABS32 is the only type that needs to emitted for relocation
as the other 2 are relative relocations.
BUG=chrome-os-partner:27094
BRANCH=None
TEST=Built vbootstub for ARM device.
Original-Change-Id: I0c22d4abca970e82ccd60b33fed700b96e3e52fb
Original-Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <adurbin@chromuim.org>
Original-Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/190922
Original-Reviewed-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack@chromium.org>
(cherry picked from commit a642102ba7ace5c1829abe7732199eda6646950a)
Signed-off-by: Marc Jones <marc.jones@se-eng.com>
Change-Id: Ib3b3c90ebb672d8d6a537df896b97dc82c6186cc
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/7204
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <eocallaghan@alterapraxis.com>
Currently, rmodules with 0 relocations are not allowed. Fix this by skipping
addition of .rmodules section on 0 relocs.
Change-Id: I7a39cf409a5f2bc808967d2b5334a15891c4748e
Signed-off-by: Furquan Shaikh <furquan@google.com>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6774
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Aaron Durbin <adurbin@google.com>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Apparently when I originally wrote this I confused myself to no end.
The code/data of an rmodule has a set memory size which is associated
with the .payload section. The relocation entries may increase the
overall footprint of the memory size if the rmodule has no bss but
a lot of relocations. Therefore, just compare relocation entries size
plus the file size of the .payload section with the memory size of the
paylod section. The .empty section is added only when we have not met
the final target size.
Change-Id: I5521dff048ae64a9b6e3c8f84a390eba37c7d0f5
Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <adurbin@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6767
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Furquan Shaikh <furquan@google.com>
The current implementation of creating rmodules relies
on invoking the linker in a certain manner with the
relocations overlaid on the BSS section. It's not really
surprising that the linker doesn't always behave the way
one wants depending on the linker used and the architecture.
Instead, introduce rmodtool which takes an ELF file as an
input, parses it, and creates a new ELF file in the format
the rmodule loader expects.
Change-Id: I31ac2d327d450ef841c3a7d9740b787278382bef
Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <adurbin@chromium.org>
Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/5378
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
Reviewed-by: Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
Furquan Shaikh