> > > ATM it looks like we should test > > > "Windows 2000" || > > > "Windows 2001" || > > > "Windows 2001 SP1" || > > > "Windows 2001.1 SP1" > > > > Including this may be too strict, what about 98/ME? > > Isn't this past EOL?
So what? People try to use it with QEMU, and it's fair to assume it's worse than XP. > > > && !( > > > "Windows 2006" || > > > "Windows 2006.1" || > > > > We know that these are all implied by the following four: > > > > > "Windows 2006 SP1" || > > > "Windows 2006 SP2" || > > > "Windows 2009" || > > > "Windows 2012" || > > > > So it is not necessary to test these four. > > True, but I don't see how this can harm us, and > I'm trying to check as much as possible. Fair enough. > > > "Linux" || > > > "FreeBSD" > > > ) && > > > _OS == "Microsoft Windows NT" > > > && > > > _REV == 0x1 > > > > Testing _OS and _REV is probably too strict. > > Why too strict? We want to only affect very specific guests. > whatever we don't know about, let's not touch it. In practice all OSes we care about will disguise themselves as Windows. I checked Solaris now and it follows Linux's lead: http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/intel/io/acpica/utilities/uteval.c?v=OPENSOLARIS;im=10 For whatever we don't know about, why should we assume 64-bit BARs work? Especially considering it's likely to be pretty old guests. Paolo _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list SeaBIOS@seabios.org http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
