Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* Adam Sulmicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040914 20:22]:
working on Milo anyways. It is a big nasty bunch of code that noone
really wants to touch.
sound as if you were talking about BOCHS BIOS :-)
It's about 200 kloc linking against a couple of million lines of linux
kernel cod
* Adam Sulmicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040914 20:22]:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>
> > Not really.. the last couple of years only me and Jay Estabrook were
> > working on Milo anyways. It is a big nasty bunch of code that noone
> > really wants to touch.
>
> sound as if you were
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Not really.. the last couple of years only me and Jay Estabrook were
> working on Milo anyways. It is a big nasty bunch of code that noone
> really wants to touch.
sound as if you were talking about BOCHS BIOS :-)
___
c: Richard Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; LinuxBIOS;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: epia m vga + memcpy update
>
> * Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040913 21:35]:
> > > Another one is Milo, the Alpha Linux Bootloader..
> >
> > Is there anyone
* Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040913 21:35]:
> > Another one is Milo, the Alpha Linux Bootloader..
>
> Is there anyone still working on that ? I thought Alpha is dead now.
>
> Ollie
Not really.. the last couple of years only me and Jay Estabrook were
working on Milo anyways. It is a big nasty
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 11:54, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Stefan Reinauer writes:
> > * Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040909 18:26]:
> > > Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> > > XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
> >
> > Yes. But not only the x86 emulat
* Egbert Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040913 19:54]:
> In the Scitech repository there are already two things: the CPU emulator
> and the PC environment. Both reside in separate directories.
> The directory structure needs to be changed (in a smart way so that
> resyncing with scitech isn't an issue
Egbert Eich wrote:
> This is probally where the difference matters most for things like
> vbios. support of the legacy bios calls. VGA card bioses are really
> fragile. One wrong return value and its off the trolly or hung in some
> sort of loop.
Yes, however we have been pretty lucky so
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 13:14, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040913 17:29]:
> > Do you have a list of people who is doing things on x86emu ? I only
> > one I found the the old scitech ftp and XF86 distribution.
>
> Another one is Milo, the Alpha Linux Bootloader..
Is ther
* Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040913 17:29]:
> Do you have a list of people who is doing things on x86emu ? I only
> one I found the the old scitech ftp and XF86 distribution.
Another one is Milo, the Alpha Linux Bootloader..
Stefan
___
Linuxbios mai
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 11:44, Egbert Eich wrote:
> > Cool. I'm going to route this info back to Jon Smirl who seems to be in
> > charge of the DRI x86emu stuff hopefully he can merge in any
> > improvements from his stuff.
> >
>
> I would prefer to do this stuff myself as Jon is mostly work
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040909 18:26]:
Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
Yes. But not only the x86 emulation itself is interesting, but also the
legacy bios emulation around it. There ar
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 06:26, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040909 18:26]:
> > Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> > XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
>
> Yes. But not only the x86 emulation itself is interesting, but also t
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 06:26, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040909 18:26]:
> > Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> > XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
>
> Yes. But not only the x86 emulation itself is interesting, but also t
Egbert Eich wrote:
> But testbios dosen't work on an ASUS P2B booting LB or COTS and my
> modified ATI vbios. Nor does LB+ADLO+BOCHS with the original M1 vbios.
> X with InitPrimary works both under COTS and LB but that was using
> using the orginal M1 bios not my "fixed" version.
The X
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 02:08, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Li-Ta Lo writes:
> >
> > Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> > XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
>
> Any XF86 stuff may be outdated.
>
Then, what is the most updated thing? X.org ?
> >
> > BT
* Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040909 18:26]:
> Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
Yes. But not only the x86 emulation itself is interesting, but also the
legacy bios emulation around it. There are so many branches
Li-Ta Lo wrote:
"clock". The only hardware IO that should be allowed untrapped is the
IO range requested by the card and the Legacy VGA ranges. Currently
testbios lets the vbios access any port it wishes. The X emu must be
doing this or the ATI M1 bios would not work.
Do you mean the InitPri
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 12:58, Richard Smith wrote:
> Li-Ta Lo wrote:
>
> > So you still think it is the timer ?
>
> It may not be the only problem. But its one problem. The flaky results
> I get seem to match up with wierd timeing problems.
>
> I haven't allocated a lot of time on this becaus
Li-Ta Lo wrote:
So you still think it is the timer ?
It may not be the only problem. But its one problem. The flaky results
I get seem to match up with wierd timeing problems.
I haven't allocated a lot of time on this because we have found that
our board has hardware problems with the pci bus
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 11:58, Richard Smith wrote:
> Li-Ta Lo wrote:
>
> >>>Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> >>>XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
> >>
> >>Something is differnt even with 4.3. I can run my ATI M1 bios under
> >>testbios and it dose
Gregg C Levine wrote:
It sounds interesting to me, here, but I only have access to the ATI
Mach64 based, Rage Pro 3D, video, on one of my machines, and the ATI
Rage 128 video, on this one. Can you elaborate?
I got the code from a something that came across the fremebuffer dev
list. But it should
Li-Ta Lo wrote:
Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
Something is differnt even with 4.3. I can run my ATI M1 bios under
testbios and it dosen't work but X with InitPrimary enabled works.
Interesting. Do you have any i
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 11:08, Richard Smith wrote:
> Li-Ta Lo wrote:
>
> >
> > Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> > XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
>
> Something is differnt even with 4.3. I can run my ATI M1 bios under
> testbios and it dosen't
ED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
LinuxBIOS;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: epia m vga + memcpy update
>
> Li-Ta Lo wrote:
>
> >
> > Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
> > XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
>
&g
Li-Ta Lo wrote:
Did they do anything on the "core" x86emu? Last time I checked,
XF86 4.4.0 has almost the same x86emu as testbios.
Something is differnt even with 4.3. I can run my ATI M1 bios under
testbios and it dosen't work but X with InitPrimary enabled works.
BTW, I think a fork of x86emu
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 01:50, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040908 17:28]:
> > Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> >
> > >ok, I hate to say this, but I think you should run linuxbios without the
> > >vga stuff, boot linux, and run that vgabios under testbios and see if that
* Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040908 17:28]:
> Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
>
> >ok, I hate to say this, but I think you should run linuxbios without the
> >vga stuff, boot linux, and run that vgabios under testbios and see if that
> >is better. This will let you know if the vgabios is doing
Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
ok, I hate to say this, but I think you should run linuxbios without the
vga stuff, boot linux, and run that vgabios under testbios and see if that
is better. This will let you know if the vgabios is doing something really
weird.
If you have the space. Try X >= 4.3 as w
ok, I hate to say this, but I think you should run linuxbios without the
vga stuff, boot linux, and run that vgabios under testbios and see if that
is better. This will let you know if the vgabios is doing something really
weird.
ron
___
Linuxbios ma
30 matches
Mail list logo
