[lldb-dev] Loading object file to target flash memory using vFlashWrite
Owen Shaw via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 10 14:17:25 PST 2018
ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress(...) is where I already have a change
that got things working, just wasn't sure if I'd be stepping on
anything else that relied on the values set there.
Looks like I dropped the dev list in my last message. Adding it back
so this is captured.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Owen Shaw <llvm at owenpshaw.net> wrote:
> Thanks! No problem doing one patch, totally get the reason...thought
> it be be easier to review in pieces, but it's not very much even with
> everything in.
> I'll work on figuring out the tests before submitting. Seems like
> most lldb tests are python, but I feel like these would fall in the
> c++ unit tests instead since there's no python API for them. Is that
> There are many lldb-server tests around. I would try to do what those tests
> are doing.
> I've actually been working on an llvm-objcopy issue related to virtual
> vs physical addresses, and we've become convinced that when different
> from virtual addresses, physical addresses should be used when
> creating a binary file from an elf, which is analogous to flashing via
> lldb. However, in lldb the addresses used by ObjectFile::LoadInMemory
> are all from Target::GetSectionLoadList(). Would it cause problems to
> put physical addresses in the target's section load list, or should
> ObjectFile::LoadInMemory ignore the section load list and do its own
> You will want to modify ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress(...). It is what loads
> an ELF file at a specific location. If the "value" argument is zero and
> value_is_offset is true, then it should be easy to figure out where stuff
> gets loaded. Since each object file might have its own notion of how it
> should be loaded, we should rely on this function if possible. Hopefully
> that is what "target modules load --load" does. Then you can use the paddr
> as needed when loading. So do the right thing for ELF and it should all work
> out. Good to hear you are actively working on what should be in vaddr vs
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Owen Shaw via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Looks like there was an addition about a year ago to load an object
> file to bare metal target memory via "target modules load --load".
> However, this isn't working in my case with openocd and a target that
> uses flash memory. By comparison, gdb loads the object just fine, but
> instead of using the M memory write command, it uses vFlashErase,
> vFlashWrite, and vFlashDone.
> These flash commands don't seem to be supported in lldb. Any reason
> not to add them?
> I've got a basic working implementation, which is probably easier to
> break into two reviews:
> 1. Add support for qXfer:memory-map and parse the resulting xml to
> determine which memory regions are flash and what their blocksizes are
> (required for vFlashErase)
> 2. Update ProcessGDBRemote::DoWriteMemory to use the flash commands
> when writing to a flash region, while continuing to use M when writing
> to non-flash regions.
> If this sounds like the right track, I'll open a Phabricator review
> for #1 to start.
> Those two things sound about right. Though we typically don't like to add
> support for something if it isn't used. #1 would add support for
> "qXfer:memory-map", but nothing would use it. So it might be ok to submit #1
> and #2 as one patch. I am open to suggestions from others if they believe
> differently. A patch should have tests for this and I am not sure how to
> test it, but just know that we will want some sort of tests.
> One question I have relates to the load address for object sections.
> The current ObjectFile::LoadInMemory implementation will incorrectly
> place my .data section at its virtual address in RAM when it really
> should be placed at its physical address in flash memory. I have code
> that can place it at the physical address, but it's unclear if that
> change is correct for every case. Does anyone have insight/opinions?
> Right now we just load things at the virtual address found in the ELF file.
> Not sure if the physical address should be used for everyone as I am not
> sure of exactly who is using this right now. Most of the time when I see ELF
> files the virtual address is equal to the physical address, so it might just
> be ok. Feel free to let us know what you think should happen and submit a
> patch. If no one has any tests that break in response to this, then we can
> try it and see how things go.
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the lldb-dev