Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:47:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: tony@dell.com (Tony Overfield) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: >64MB Message-ID: <199711070047.RAA19061@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971106150255.006d5438@bugs.us.dell.com> from "Tony Overfield" at Nov 6, 97 03:02:55 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >The kernel should not be dependent on data from the boot loader, really. > >If it is, it means that the boot loader can't be shared among OS's > >without a *lot* of effort. > > Why not use a common bootinfo structure? Because the free software groups are constitutionally incapable of agreeing on such a thing. > >Yes, and no. > > > >If I have a FreeBSD kernel HAL, then I need to avoid architecture > >dependent things before I hit protected mode and can run as the > >kernel-before-init-has-been-started. > > If you have a HAL, then the architecture dependent HAL driver is the > code that should worry about the architecture dependent things. Yes. And it would run in the same mode as the kernel itself, right, because the kernel shouldn't have to know how to mode change because knowing that would make it architecture dependent. > >This is just one example... don't take it reductio ad absurdum. ;-). > > Ok. This is interesting, but it doesn't argue for using the CMOS RTC > memory values. In fact, I'm not sure what it argues for. It's absurd > to think you can boot without an architecture specific boot loader, > isn't it? Why not use a common boot mechanism? Heh. "Because the hardware vendors are constitutionally incapable of agreeing on such a thing". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711070047.RAA19061>