AnsweredAssumed Answered

config.bib ROMOFFSET calculation for iMX53 EC7 platform

Question asked by Bruno De Paoli on May 15, 2013
Latest reply on Jun 6, 2014 by Bruno De Paoli
Branched to a new discussion



I am attempting to build an image for NOR flash on an EC7 iMX53 based platform.


I am using the SABRE ARD BSP as the base BSP for this. The config.bib file does not appear to have support for NOR flash and my understanding is that I need to modify this file (amongs other things). Specifically in config.bib I think I need to define the ROMOFFSET variable to suit my configuration/platform. The MSDN documentation states that this is needed when the run-time image is located at a different address. This is the case here since it is stored in NOR but I want it to execute from RAM. I believe I can use XIP but I don't want to do this just yet. I have attempted to use the NAND flash section as an example of what to do but I find it confusing.


For example in config.bib here is where ROMOFFSET is defined for Nand Flash.


        ; CSP_BASE_MEM_PA_NFC+IMAGE_BOOT_NKIMAGE_NAND_OFFSET = 0x9F5F0000 + 0x80400 = 0x9F670400


        ;           = (0x9F670400 -  0x80200000) % 0x100000000 = 0x1F470400



Here is a relevant line from the g_oalAddressTable in defining the virtual/physical addresses for NAND controller.


       DCD 0x9F500000, CSP_BASE_MEM_PA_NFC_1MB, 5      ; NFC internal buffer



The first comment in config.bib says CSP_BASE_MEM_PA_NFC+IMAGE_BOOT_NKIMAGE_NAND_OFFSET = 0x9F5F0000 + 0x80400 = 0x9F670400.


CSP_BASE_MEM_PA_NFC equals 0xF7FF0000 for an iMX53 and not 0x9F5F0000 as in the comment. 0x9F5F0000 looks like a virtual address as defined in g_oalAddressTable.

Secondly NAND virtual address start at 0x9F500000 and not 0x9F5F0000. There appears to be an offset of 0xF0000.

To confuse things further I have seen it stated that ROMOFFSET is used for Physical<->Virtual address compensation.


I am trying to use the NAND as an example of what to do with NOR but I find it totally confusing. So can someone clarify this?


  • The comments state physical addresses but the actual calculations appear to use virtual addresses.
  • The NAND virtual start address used (0x9F5F0000) is not the start of NAND (0x9F500000) as per the g_oalAddressTable. Where did this 0xF0000 offset come from?


Thanks in advance.