Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:33:19 -0400 | Subject | Re: [question] x86/x86_64 boot process | From | Brandon Falk <> |
| |
Would it be reasonable to put the setup code at 0x7c00 (given that I can fit my boot loader in the space before the kernel header)?
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Brandon Falk <bfalk@gamozolabs.com> wrote: > It's currently only for learning purposes, and I will change loading > from 0x90000. Thanks for the help, now that I know that I'm > responsible for loading the protected-mode code, I know what to do > next. > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: >> On 06/12/2012 02:14 PM, Brandon Falk wrote: >>> All I really see related to the post-setup stage is: >>> >>> 'The 32-bit (non-real-mode) kernel starts at offset (setup_sects+1)*512 >>> in the kernel file (again, if setup_sects == 0 the real value is 4.) >>> It should be loaded at address 0x10000 for Image/zImage kernels and >>> 0x100000 for bzImage kernels.' >>> >>> I've read this document a few times, and it doesn't seem to mention if >>> the kernel assists in loading. Do I have to load up the whole >>> protected-mode kernel? Just the first few sectors? I guess that's what >>> I'm trying to figure out, and I feel the boot.txt has not answered >>> that for me. >>> >> >> I would also strongly discourage you from writing a new bootloader if >> you can avoid it. You *certainly* want to avoid the use of the fixed >> 0x90000 address, that is a decade obsolete. >> >> -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/
| |