On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
> >
> > It looks like we let Microsoft fill the design guide void.
> > If you were to write "PC DESIGN GUIDE - For the Linux Operating
> > System" and a pile of test code, then there would be an
> > alternative to point peop
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> It looks like we let Microsoft fill the design guide void.
> If you were to write "PC DESIGN GUIDE - For the Linux Operating
> System" and a pile of test code, then there would be an
> alternative to point people at.
>
> Complaining is pretty useless.
I was thinki
H. Peter Anvin writes:
> "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> URRRK. I get a feeling these specs are either there to make life extra
>>> difficult for programmers, because the people that design them are too
>>> stupid to tie their own shoes, or because th
"Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > URRRK. I get a feeling these specs are either there to make life extra
> > difficult for programmers, because the people that design them are too
> > stupid to tie their own shoes, or because they want nothing but M
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> URRRK. I get a feeling these specs are either there to make life extra
> difficult for programmers, because the people that design them are too
> stupid to tie their own shoes, or because they want nothing but M$
> factory-installed to work.
The p
> I also really, really, *REALLY* hate them for killing serial ports. It's
> a Bad Idea[TM].
Why, it opens up the market for serial-ports-on-USB devices. HW
manufactures can make significantly more money on that than on $7.95
ISA multi I/O cards[1] ;-)
Olaf
[1] and I still dislike those, becau
"Dunlap, Randy" wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about this, but I'm wondering if the
> Fixed (as in Static) ACPI Description Table (FADT)
> can indicate that the platform is a legacy-free system.
>
Parsing ACPI is a nightmare on steroids. That is just Not An Option[TM]
in a < 10K bootstrap routine.
>
> From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:10 PM
>
> "Dunlap, Randy" wrote:
> >
> > a. The BIOS isn't required to have int. 0x15, AH=0x2401 [Appx. A],
> >but that is handled by your patch.
>
> Idiots. This should be required and be a null functi
"Dunlap, Randy" wrote:
>
> a. The BIOS isn't required to have int. 0x15, AH=0x2401 [Appx. A],
>but that is handled by your patch.
Idiots. This should be required and be a null function; likewise
AH=0x2400. The only thing that the current spec means is that
> b. The BIOS isn't required to
hpa-
I tested this patch on a Pentium dual-proc system (440GX)
and on a Celeron system[1] (810) that lacks floppy, keyboard
controller, maybe some other things.
Linux 2.4.0 boots fine on each of these systems with this
patch applied. I couldn't tell which method of
enabling A20 was actually suc
Okay, here is yet another A20 patch (against test12-pre6) this time
for people to try out. This patch uses the following algorithm for
enabling A20:
1. Try the BIOS call. If it works, we're cool.
2. Try the KBC (using Linus' lowered timeouts.)
3. If the KBC doesn't work, or is very slow, flip p
11 matches
Mail list logo
