Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do! El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" <ion...@videotron.ca> escribió:
> I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with > runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present). > > If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we > can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP. > > Hence there would only be 2 HALs. > > Best regards, > Alex Ionescu > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <co...@reactos.org> wrote: > >> Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically >> put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains >> in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB >> vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this >> difference? >> Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids >> >> >> > Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal, it's because they now >> support basically only one "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI >> multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons. >> >> That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all >> (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at >> boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people >> out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs. >> >> But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86 >> computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different >> systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What >> would be the point? >> >> >> > Besides this, I've a question about your observation that in the APIC >> hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of >> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs / >> HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are >> completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the >> standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used? >> >> Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC >> system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a >> diff tool to see for yourself. >> >> The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers, >> Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional >> one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because >> the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency. >> The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while >> the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT. >> >> >> > Actually we should, because the detection might not work (of course in >> our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard", it's simple, but think about >> other platforms where there can be subtle differences) >> >> Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to >> support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a >> different HAL at setup. >> >> >> > And normally it's not the setup that decides about the HAL, but the >> bootloader. >> >> That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the >> registry depending on the HAL. >> If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after >> installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one >> HAL that encompasses both. >> >> >> - Colin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ros-dev mailing list >> Ros-dev@reactos.org >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
