lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86 Boot enhancements, boot protocol 2.04 7/9
    Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    >
    >>There can't be a "default load address". 0x90000 is actively dangerous and
    >>trying to encourage it for anything than legacy kernels is WRONG. If you can't
    >>handle this, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
    >
    >
    > I agree. But I do think being able to hard code the load address is a
    > very good thing.
    >
    > After digesting the requirements I plan on having setup.S call int 12h
    > (so the information is available), and then having misc.c relocate the
    > real mode code, and the command line, out of the way, of it's
    > decompression buffer. This removes the need for bootloaders to
    > make a tradeoff between memory use efficiency and reliability.
    >
    > This should give me about 630KB on machines designed to run DOS, where
    > this matters. Better than the current best of 572KB, with the real
    > mode code @ 0x90000.
    >
    > And when your total size is 1-4MB. +-640KB is a significant change.
    >

    Agreed. Note that so far putting the real mode code *above* 0x90000 is
    completely untested. It *should* work with boot protocol 2.02 support;
    it almost certainly *does not* work with earlier boot protocols (due to
    the "move it back to 0x90000" braindamage.)

    -hpa

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.023 / U:29.928 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site