> ]Subject: Re: [coreboot] why is firmware 32 bit as opposed to 64 bit
> ]
> ]I understand the arguments.
> ]
> ]It's worth remembering that coreboot has to date run on 5 different
> ]architectures. 4 of those used paging. The x86 has always been the
> ]outlier. Lack of pagi
Hi Scott,
congratulations to this awesome feat!
On 21.01.2015 06:08, Scott Duplichan wrote:
> ron minnich [mailto:rminn...@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> ]Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 06:34 PM
> ]To: Marc Jones
> ]Cc: Scott Duplichan; coreboot
> ]Subject: Re: [coreboot] why is firmware
ron minnich [mailto:rminn...@gmail.com] wrote:
]Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 06:34 PM
]To: Marc Jones
]Cc: Scott Duplichan; coreboot
]Subject: Re: [coreboot] why is firmware 32 bit as opposed to 64 bit
]
]I understand the arguments.
]
]It's worth remembering that coreboot has to date run
I understand the arguments.
It's worth remembering that coreboot has to date run on 5 different
architectures. 4 of those used paging. The x86 has always been the
outlier. Lack of paging has costs not discussed much. Rmodules would
be a lot simpler if we had paging. We could make the code space
re
Nice answer, Scott.
You pointed out everything I was going to say. I think this is
something we should put on the wiki in a FAQ. A 64bit ramstage has
questionable value, but a 64bit payload might be useful.
Marc
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Scott Duplichan wrote:
> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcode
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko [mailto:phco...@gmail.com] wrote"
]On 10.08.2014 21:06, John de la Garza wrote:
]> I understand that the calling functions in 32 bit C uses the stack and
]> this is why coreboot needs to use cache as RAM. Doesn't 64 bit C use
]> registers to pass arguments t
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:48 PM, The Gluglug wrote:
> What about 32-bit-only machines, or people that want to use a 32-bit OS?
>
well, we won't compile 64-bit firmware for 32-bit machines, if that
helps. See: ARM v8 vs. v7.
And a 32-bit OS can run on a machine with 64-bit firmware; see: EFI.
r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What about 32-bit-only machines, or people that want to use a 32-bit OS?
On 10/08/14 22:37, ron minnich wrote:
> One of the reasons I"m working to implement paging for 32-bit mode
> is for our eventual change to 64-bit mode for coreboot. It's gone
>
One of the reasons I"m working to implement paging for 32-bit mode is
for our eventual change to 64-bit mode for coreboot. It's gone on the
back burner for a bit as I'm doing a few other coreboot things first.
I'd love to have the help, if you have time.
ron
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Vla
On 10.08.2014 21:06, John de la Garza wrote:
> I understand that the calling functions in 32 bit C uses the stack and
> this is why coreboot needs to use cache as RAM. Doesn't 64 bit C use
> registers to pass arguments to functions? If this is the case why not
> run in 64 bit mode?
>
> Also, eve
Am 10.08.2014 um 21:06 schrieb John de la Garza:
> Doesn't 64 bit C use registers to pass arguments to functions? If
> this is the case why not run in 64 bit mode?
Even in 64bit mode you have to store state somewhere (that is, on the
stack) before you have free registers to call new functions.
I understand that the calling functions in 32 bit C uses the stack and
this is why coreboot needs to use cache as RAM. Doesn't 64 bit C use
registers to pass arguments to functions? If this is the case why not
run in 64 bit mode?
Also, even if cache as RAM is used and a stack is available, why n
12 matches
Mail list logo
