Re: [patch] teach the bootloader minor amd64 knowledge
John Baldwin schrieb am 2010-03-22: > On Monday 22 March 2010 11:20:10 am Alexander Best wrote: > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2010-03-22: > > > On Monday 22 March 2010 9:50:05 am Alexander Best wrote: > > > > hi there, > > > > since i386 and amd64 are sharing the same bootcode the > > > > bootloader > > > > gets named > > > > "FreeBSD/i386" on amd64 too. the following patch is a cosmetic > > > > change to > > > have > > > > the bootloader identify itself as "FreeBSD/amd64" on amd64. > > > > any thoughts on this one? > > > I would not do this. They really are the same binary. You can > > > take > > > a > > > /boot/loader built under FreeBSD/i386 and use it to load an amd64 > > > kernel and > > > vice versa. The one change I looked at doing a while back was > > > renaming the > > > i386/amd64 boot bits to identify themselves as 'FreeBSD/x86' > > > rather > > > than > > > 'FreeBSD/i386'. > > sounds nice. however that would introduce some severe > > inconsistency, because > > the term 'i386' is used in many places to define the x86 > > architecture (uname > > -p/-m e.g.). also 'x86' related files/directories are called > > 'i386'. > > personally i'd like to see the term 'i386' completely replaced by > > 'x86' > > throughout the whole freebsd code. > > if i'm not mistaken 80386 has been dropped in GENERIC in freebsd4 > > and entirely > > in freebsd5. > Ah, but 'x86' is commonly used now for things that are shared between > i386 > and amd64. See sys/x86 in HEAD, sys/arch/x86 in NetBSD, etc. I > think even > Linux has an x86 tree for shared code between i386 and x86_64. i see. i always thought x86 was used to describe the intel 32 bit architecture in general, replacing the term i386 (which describes a specific platform rather than an architecture/instruction set). introducing the x86 keyword sounds like a good idea. in the future it may not only cover the intel 32bit and 64bit architecture, but also 128bit, etc. if intel decides to keep the instruction set and remains backward compatible that is. ;) -- Alexander Best ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [patch] teach the bootloader minor amd64 knowledge
On Monday 22 March 2010 11:20:10 am Alexander Best wrote: > John Baldwin schrieb am 2010-03-22: > > On Monday 22 March 2010 9:50:05 am Alexander Best wrote: > > > hi there, > > > > since i386 and amd64 are sharing the same bootcode the bootloader > > > gets named > > > "FreeBSD/i386" on amd64 too. the following patch is a cosmetic > > > change to > > have > > > the bootloader identify itself as "FreeBSD/amd64" on amd64. > > > > any thoughts on this one? > > > I would not do this. They really are the same binary. You can take > > a > > /boot/loader built under FreeBSD/i386 and use it to load an amd64 > > kernel and > > vice versa. The one change I looked at doing a while back was > > renaming the > > i386/amd64 boot bits to identify themselves as 'FreeBSD/x86' rather > > than > > 'FreeBSD/i386'. > > sounds nice. however that would introduce some severe inconsistency, because > the term 'i386' is used in many places to define the x86 architecture (uname > -p/-m e.g.). also 'x86' related files/directories are called 'i386'. > > personally i'd like to see the term 'i386' completely replaced by 'x86' > throughout the whole freebsd code. > > if i'm not mistaken 80386 has been dropped in GENERIC in freebsd4 and entirely > in freebsd5. Ah, but 'x86' is commonly used now for things that are shared between i386 and amd64. See sys/x86 in HEAD, sys/arch/x86 in NetBSD, etc. I think even Linux has an x86 tree for shared code between i386 and x86_64. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [patch] teach the bootloader minor amd64 knowledge
John Baldwin schrieb am 2010-03-22: > On Monday 22 March 2010 9:50:05 am Alexander Best wrote: > > hi there, > > since i386 and amd64 are sharing the same bootcode the bootloader > > gets named > > "FreeBSD/i386" on amd64 too. the following patch is a cosmetic > > change to > have > > the bootloader identify itself as "FreeBSD/amd64" on amd64. > > any thoughts on this one? > I would not do this. They really are the same binary. You can take > a > /boot/loader built under FreeBSD/i386 and use it to load an amd64 > kernel and > vice versa. The one change I looked at doing a while back was > renaming the > i386/amd64 boot bits to identify themselves as 'FreeBSD/x86' rather > than > 'FreeBSD/i386'. sounds nice. however that would introduce some severe inconsistency, because the term 'i386' is used in many places to define the x86 architecture (uname -p/-m e.g.). also 'x86' related files/directories are called 'i386'. personally i'd like to see the term 'i386' completely replaced by 'x86' throughout the whole freebsd code. if i'm not mistaken 80386 has been dropped in GENERIC in freebsd4 and entirely in freebsd5. -- Alexander Best ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [patch] teach the bootloader minor amd64 knowledge
On Monday 22 March 2010 9:50:05 am Alexander Best wrote: > hi there, > > since i386 and amd64 are sharing the same bootcode the bootloader gets named > "FreeBSD/i386" on amd64 too. the following patch is a cosmetic change to have > the bootloader identify itself as "FreeBSD/amd64" on amd64. > > any thoughts on this one? I would not do this. They really are the same binary. You can take a /boot/loader built under FreeBSD/i386 and use it to load an amd64 kernel and vice versa. The one change I looked at doing a while back was renaming the i386/amd64 boot bits to identify themselves as 'FreeBSD/x86' rather than 'FreeBSD/i386'. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
[patch] teach the bootloader minor amd64 knowledge
hi there,
since i386 and amd64 are sharing the same bootcode the bootloader gets named
"FreeBSD/i386" on amd64 too. the following patch is a cosmetic change to have
the bootloader identify itself as "FreeBSD/amd64" on amd64.
any thoughts on this one?
--
Alexander Best
Index: sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c
===
--- sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c (revision 205390)
+++ sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c (working copy)
@@ -283,7 +283,11 @@
for (;;) {
if (!autoboot || !OPT_CHECK(RBX_QUIET))
+#ifdef FAKE_I386
+ printf("\nFreeBSD/amd64 boot\n"
+#else
printf("\nFreeBSD/i386 boot\n"
+#endif
"Default: %u:%s(%u,%c)%s\n"
"boot: ",
dsk.drive & DRV_MASK, dev_nm[dsk.type], dsk.unit,
Index: sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc
===
--- sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc (revision 205390)
+++ sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc (working copy)
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
LDFLAGS+= -nostdlib
.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "amd64"
-CFLAGS+= -m32 -march=i386
+CFLAGS+= -m32 -march=i386 -DFAKE_I386
LDFLAGS+= -m elf_i386_fbsd
AFLAGS+= --32
.endif
Index: sys/boot/i386/zfsboot/zfsboot.c
===
--- sys/boot/i386/zfsboot/zfsboot.c (revision 205390)
+++ sys/boot/i386/zfsboot/zfsboot.c (working copy)
@@ -730,7 +730,11 @@
for (;;) {
if (!autoboot || !OPT_CHECK(RBX_QUIET))
+#ifdef FAKE_I386
+ printf("\nFreeBSD/amd64 boot\n"
+#else
printf("\nFreeBSD/i386 boot\n"
+#endif
"Default: %s:%s\n"
"boot: ",
spa->spa_name, kname);
Index: sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
===
--- sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile (revision 205390)
+++ sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile (working copy)
@@ -6,7 +6,11 @@
LOADER?= loader
PROG= ${LOADER}.sym
INTERNALPROG=
+.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "amd64"
+NEWVERSWHAT?= "bootstrap loader" amd64
+.else
NEWVERSWHAT?= "bootstrap loader" i386
+.endif
# architecture-specific loader code
SRCS= main.c conf.c vers.c
Index: sys/boot/i386/gptboot/gptboot.c
===
--- sys/boot/i386/gptboot/gptboot.c (revision 205390)
+++ sys/boot/i386/gptboot/gptboot.c (working copy)
@@ -281,7 +281,11 @@
for (;;) {
if (!autoboot || !OPT_CHECK(RBX_QUIET))
+#ifdef FAKE_I386
+ printf("\nFreeBSD/amd64 boot\n"
+#else
printf("\nFreeBSD/i386 boot\n"
+#endif
"Default: %u:%s(%up%u)%s\n"
"boot: ",
dsk.drive & DRV_MASK, dev_nm[dsk.type], dsk.unit,
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
--- Thomas Sparrevohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 28 June 2007 14:44:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > --- Thomas Sparrevohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > > ... > > > > > > > > I have Vista Home edition ruinning any FreeBSD without any problems and > > > without having to do anything special - That is on CURRENT > > > > > > > > Hmm... > > > > Installation order is important, perhaps you already had FreeBSD before > > installing Vista? In my case Vista Premium came preinstalled, there was > also a > > FAT partition (with diagnostic stuff) and an NTFS for rescue purposes. > > > > No - The originally came with XP - I nuked that and installed FreeBSD - > However > I did nuke the XP totally before upgrading to Vista - It does overwrite the > FreeBSD > MBR - I just rebooted using a CD and added the mbr again > > > Of course getting the new computer without Vista was not really an option > :(, > > but MS went too far this time, they removed postcript type1 font support > and > > they crippled OpenGL enough that major CAD packages don't work easily or > have > > something like 85% performance penalty. > > > > Pedro. > > --- Hi, this may not be the correct place to ask - but it is related. Has anyone been able to get Vista running on qemu? Cheers, Tim. Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
On Thursday 28 June 2007 14:44:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > --- Thomas Sparrevohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > ... > > > > > I have Vista Home edition ruinning any FreeBSD without any problems and > > without having to do anything special - That is on CURRENT > > > > > Hmm... > > Installation order is important, perhaps you already had FreeBSD before > installing Vista? In my case Vista Premium came preinstalled, there was also a > FAT partition (with diagnostic stuff) and an NTFS for rescue purposes. > No - The originally came with XP - I nuked that and installed FreeBSD - However I did nuke the XP totally before upgrading to Vista - It does overwrite the FreeBSD MBR - I just rebooted using a CD and added the mbr again > Of course getting the new computer without Vista was not really an option :(, > but MS went too far this time, they removed postcript type1 font support and > they crippled OpenGL enough that major CAD packages don't work easily or have > something like 85% performance penalty. > > Pedro. > > > ___ > L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: > http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
--- Thomas Sparrevohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: ... > > I have Vista Home edition ruinning any FreeBSD without any problems and > without having to do anything special - That is on CURRENT > > Hmm... Installation order is important, perhaps you already had FreeBSD before installing Vista? In my case Vista Premium came preinstalled, there was also a FAT partition (with diagnostic stuff) and an NTFS for rescue purposes. Of course getting the new computer without Vista was not really an option :(, but MS went too far this time, they removed postcript type1 font support and they crippled OpenGL enough that major CAD packages don't work easily or have something like 85% performance penalty. Pedro. ___ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:33:39 Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > I have Vista Home edition ruinning any FreeBSD without any problems and > > without having to do anything special - That is on CURRENT > > ruinning: No such word > ruining: Wrecking, destroying > running: Working acceptably - I guess you probably mean this ? > LOL - Yes the last - ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
Ivan Voras wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, if you just got your new computer with Windows Vista installed and were hoping to dual boot FreeBSD on it, let me tell you that FreeBSD's bootloader will screw things up. vista doesn't like: >> - bootloaders different than the one used by Vista. >> - Making a non Vista partition active. I can confirm this - messing with the boot sector will make Vista unbootable, but it can be repaired with the installer (of course, you lose FreeBSD at that point). It seems Vista uses registry or some other binary format to store boot info (as opposed to WinXP which uses a text file...) and it protects the boot loader for "DRM" reasons. This has been SOP at Microsoft for almost a decade. If you want to dual-boot Windows, the solution is to use the established methods for adding additional boot options to the built-in Windows boot-loader. For Vista, this means using the BCDEdit command-line tool to manipulate the Boot Configuration Data in the system registry rather than Notepad to edit boot.ini. BCDEdit and its options are detailed on MSDN: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa468636.aspx A slightly more useful discussion of BCDedit on bsdforums.org: http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=48405 It specifies Linux, but this is a tutorial for adding a non-Windows boot option to the Vista Boot Manager: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/10/13/Using-Vista_2700_s-Boot-Manager-to-Boot-Linux-and-Dual-Booting-with-BitLocker-Protection-with-TPM-Support.aspx -- Darren Pilgrim ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi; > > FWIW, if you just got your new computer with Windows Vista installed and were > hoping to dual boot FreeBSD on it, let me tell you that FreeBSD's bootloader > will screw things up. > > Microsoft basically declared the war on alternative OSs so it seems vista > doesn't like: ... Actually, NetBSD can criple FreeBSD MBR too ! Detail http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/hardware/laptops/#netbsd (I tried Net in desperation as FreeBSD-6.2 useless w. 16 bit pcmcia & PLIP) (I reported MBR to [EMAIL PROTECTED] & got just 1 response, not a solution). So many OS' cripple other OS's MBR - Sigh ! -- Julian Stacey. Munich Computer Consultant, BSD Unix C Linux. http://berklix.com HTML mail unseen. Ihr Rauch=mein allergischer Kopfschmerz. Dump cigs 4 snuff. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
> I have Vista Home edition ruinning any FreeBSD without any problems and > without having to do anything special - That is on CURRENT ruinning: No such word ruining:Wrecking, destroying running:Working acceptably - I guess you probably mean this ? -- Julian Stacey. Munich Computer Consultant, BSD Unix C Linux. http://berklix.com HTML mail unseen. Ihr Rauch=mein allergischer Kopfschmerz. Dump cigs 4 snuff. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
On Thursday 28 June 2007 03:08:34 Garrett Cooper wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi; > > > > FWIW, if you just got your new computer with Windows Vista installed and > > were > > hoping to dual boot FreeBSD on it, let me tell you that FreeBSD's bootloader > > will screw things up. > > > > Microsoft basically declared the war on alternative OSs so it seems vista > > doesn't like: > > - bootloaders different than the one used by Vista. > > - Making a non Vista partition active. > > > > I did what I used to do with XP: I resized the Windows partition with a > > liveCD > > and QTparted, Installed FreeBSD with booteasy.. and surprise... Windows > > Vista > > won't run again. > > > > I then rescued the Vista installation with the install CD (good thing they > > included that this time, and not only the preinstalled OS!), and looked on > > the > > -net for something called EasyBCD, which looks like it will solve the > > problem > > by reconfiguring the Vista bootloader. > > > > cheers, > > > >Pedro. > > > Their excuse is probably to keep (some of the less intelligent) users > out there from booting using their own media or alternate means. M$ > really must have something important in their bootloader... > -Garrett I have Vista Home edition ruinning any FreeBSD without any problems and without having to do anything special - That is on CURRENT ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi; > > > > FWIW, if you just got your new computer with Windows Vista installed and were > > hoping to dual boot FreeBSD on it, let me tell you that FreeBSD's bootloader > > will screw things up. > > > > Microsoft basically declared the war on alternative OSs so it seems vista > > doesn't like: > > - bootloaders different than the one used by Vista. > > - Making a non Vista partition active. I can confirm this - messing with the boot sector will make Vista unbootable, but it can be repaired with the installer (of course, you lose FreeBSD at that point). It seems Vista uses registry or some other binary format to store boot info (as opposed to WinXP which uses a text file...) and it protects the boot loader for "DRM" reasons. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi; FWIW, if you just got your new computer with Windows Vista installed and were hoping to dual boot FreeBSD on it, let me tell you that FreeBSD's bootloader will screw things up. Microsoft basically declared the war on alternative OSs so it seems vista doesn't like: - bootloaders different than the one used by Vista. - Making a non Vista partition active. I did what I used to do with XP: I resized the Windows partition with a liveCD and QTparted, Installed FreeBSD with booteasy.. and surprise... Windows Vista won't run again. I then rescued the Vista installation with the install CD (good thing they included that this time, and not only the preinstalled OS!), and looked on the -net for something called EasyBCD, which looks like it will solve the problem by reconfiguring the Vista bootloader. cheers, Pedro. Their excuse is probably to keep (some of the less intelligent) users out there from booting using their own media or alternate means. M$ really must have something important in their bootloader... -Garrett ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
MS Vista vs FreeBSD's bootloader
Hi; FWIW, if you just got your new computer with Windows Vista installed and were hoping to dual boot FreeBSD on it, let me tell you that FreeBSD's bootloader will screw things up. Microsoft basically declared the war on alternative OSs so it seems vista doesn't like: - bootloaders different than the one used by Vista. - Making a non Vista partition active. I did what I used to do with XP: I resized the Windows partition with a liveCD and QTparted, Installed FreeBSD with booteasy.. and surprise... Windows Vista won't run again. I then rescued the Vista installation with the install CD (good thing they included that this time, and not only the preinstalled OS!), and looked on the -net for something called EasyBCD, which looks like it will solve the problem by reconfiguring the Vista bootloader. cheers, Pedro. ___ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: bootloader....
> From owner-freebsd-sm...@freebsd.org Fri Jul 30 10:45:10 1999 > From: "Nielsen, Roy S" > To: "'freebsd-sm...@freebsd.org'" , > "'freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org'" > Subject: bootloader > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:44:57 -0700 > > I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot > loader code and booteasy bootloader code... > > does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this > topic? -- more specifically without > bios calls/support? > > I've seen the booteasy code at: > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/tools/srcs/bteasy/ > > is there a newer version? this code is supposed to be compiled with > TASM/Borland C right? is there source that > can be compiled with gnu tools? > > I'll take any and all suggestions :) > > Thanks, > -roy > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message > FreeBSD 3.2-Release: /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 Note: this is one of a zillion of boot managers that do this. Note2: you only get 512 bytes loaded in from the MBR or 0 level boot. This is BARELY enough to use the BIOS calls. You use this to load the level 1 boot which is usually about 8K, and even it still uses the bios calls, due to the evil keyboard IO, disk IO remapping, etc. etc., etc. that the BIOS does. Patrick Powell Astart Technologies, papow...@astart.com9475 Chesapeake Drive, Suite D, Network and System San Diego, CA 92123 Consulting 619-874-6543 FAX 619-279-8424 LPRng - Print Spooler (http://www.astart.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: bootloader....
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 30 10:45:10 1999 > From: "Nielsen, Roy S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: bootloader > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:44:57 -0700 > > I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot > loader code and booteasy bootloader code... > > does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this > topic? -- more specifically without > bios calls/support? > > I've seen the booteasy code at: > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/tools/srcs/bteasy/ > > is there a newer version? this code is supposed to be compiled with > TASM/Borland C right? is there source that > can be compiled with gnu tools? > > I'll take any and all suggestions :) > > Thanks, > -roy > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message > FreeBSD 3.2-Release: /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 Note: this is one of a zillion of boot managers that do this. Note2: you only get 512 bytes loaded in from the MBR or 0 level boot. This is BARELY enough to use the BIOS calls. You use this to load the level 1 boot which is usually about 8K, and even it still uses the bios calls, due to the evil keyboard IO, disk IO remapping, etc. etc., etc. that the BIOS does. Patrick Powell Astart Technologies, [EMAIL PROTECTED]9475 Chesapeake Drive, Suite D, Network and System San Diego, CA 92123 Consulting 619-874-6543 FAX 619-279-8424 LPRng - Print Spooler (http://www.astart.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: bootloader....
[Cross-posted: replying to -hackers] > I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot > loader code and booteasy bootloader code... > > does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this > topic? -- more specifically without > bios calls/support? There is some information in the FreeBSD handbook http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/ for example, "PC Memory Utilization" and "The FreeBSD Booting Process", though much of this is currently out-of-date. Otherwise, as maintainer of the low-level i386 boot code, I can probably help with specific issues. I'm not aware off-hand of any code anywhere that doesn't rely on the BIOS at all, though in some cases (eg. src/sys/i386/boot/netboot) BIOS support could fairly easily be dispensed with, by writing a bit of extra code. > I've seen the booteasy code at: > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/tools/srcs/bteasy/ > > is there a newer version? this code is supposed to be compiled with > TASM/Borland C right? is there source that > can be compiled with gnu tools? See src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 in the FreeBSD source tree. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: bootloader....
[Cross-posted: replying to -hackers] > I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot > loader code and booteasy bootloader code... > > does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this > topic? -- more specifically without > bios calls/support? There is some information in the FreeBSD handbook http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/ for example, "PC Memory Utilization" and "The FreeBSD Booting Process", though much of this is currently out-of-date. Otherwise, as maintainer of the low-level i386 boot code, I can probably help with specific issues. I'm not aware off-hand of any code anywhere that doesn't rely on the BIOS at all, though in some cases (eg. src/sys/i386/boot/netboot) BIOS support could fairly easily be dispensed with, by writing a bit of extra code. > I've seen the booteasy code at: > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/tools/srcs/bteasy/ > > is there a newer version? this code is supposed to be compiled with > TASM/Borland C right? is there source that > can be compiled with gnu tools? See src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 in the FreeBSD source tree. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
bootloader....
I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot loader code and booteasy bootloader code... does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this topic? -- more specifically without bios calls/support? I've seen the booteasy code at: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/tools/srcs/bteasy/ is there a newer version? this code is supposed to be compiled with TASM/Borland C right? is there source that can be compiled with gnu tools? I'll take any and all suggestions :) Thanks, -roy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
bootloader....
I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot loader code and booteasy bootloader code... does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this topic? -- more specifically without bios calls/support? I've seen the booteasy code at: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/tools/srcs/bteasy/ is there a newer version? this code is supposed to be compiled with TASM/Borland C right? is there source that can be compiled with gnu tools? I'll take any and all suggestions :) Thanks, -roy To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
