Thinking about ADLO and the shadow enable/disable got some wheels turning.
I've been spending lots of time in V2 and I was wondering if the same type of methodology can't work for ADLO.
In V2 there are specifc .c files that do thing in a chipset specific way and the auto.c includes them as necesary. Those get compiled and then stuck in the startup assembly.
What if we created a shadow.c file that was in the northbridge directory with a simple API type setup that enabled and disabled the various shadow ranges.
Then the ADLO build system could just romcc these files and the loader would include them just like crt0.S does. That way there are no callbacks across the payload boundry yet you could setup ADLO or other payloads so they would work in a chipset agnostic way.
I suppose that that FILO and the emulator render most of ADLO un-needed but if you are going to try and use FreeDOS or Windoze as an OS then you will need ADLO.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Richard Smith wrote:
Then the ADLO build system could just romcc these files and the loader would include them just like crt0.S does.
it makes sense except ... why romcc? You've got memory at this point, and Eric was pretty careful to make sure the same code will compile and work on gcc and romcc.
ron
Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com writes:
Thinking about ADLO and the shadow enable/disable got some wheels turning.
I've been spending lots of time in V2 and I was wondering if the same type of methodology can't work for ADLO.
In V2 there are specifc .c files that do thing in a chipset specific way and the auto.c includes them as necesary. Those get compiled and then stuck in the startup assembly.
What if we created a shadow.c file that was in the northbridge directory with a simple API type setup that enabled and disabled the various shadow ranges.
That is a fairly sane way to get code sharing, if we need it. The code is small enough and simple enough cut-and-paste code sharing is probably just as good. All you need to do is look at which chipset you are running on. We only need to drop out support if it becomes too much code having support for all of the chipsets and cpus.
But I actually think that is overkill. v2 by default and design enables all of the shadow ranges as memory. So we just need to use those ranges. That should be much easier having to patch ADLO each time. It is fairly unlikely a writable ROM segment is going to break anything.
Once we find the application a writable rom segment breaks I will be happy to reconsider, solutions.
I suppose that that FILO and the emulator render most of ADLO un-needed but if you are going to try and use FreeDOS or Windoze as an OS then you will need ADLO.
ADLO has a use case and for those
Eric
But I actually think that is overkill. v2 by default and design enables all of the shadow ranges as memory. So we just need to use those ranges. That should be much easier having to patch ADLO each time. It is fairly unlikely a writable ROM segment is
Ok.. Well when you put it that way yeah dosen't sound like its needed at all. It should probally just work.
I't will be awhile but I guess I will find out when I get there. I'm planning on still trying to use ADLO when I get V2 up and going on our board.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:12:27 -0600, Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com wrote:
But I actually think that is overkill. v2 by default and design enables all of the shadow ranges as memory. So we just need to use those ranges. That should be much easier having to patch ADLO each time. It is fairly unlikely a writable ROM segment is
Ok.. Well when you put it that way yeah dosen't sound like its needed at all. It should probally just work.
Wait a minute. I don't see how this will work. To do the shadows you need to read from the bios chip, yet write to the RAM. Then re-enable both read and writes to go to RAM. This requires you to toggle some bits in the norhtbridge.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Richard Smith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:12:27 -0600, Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com wrote:
But I actually think that is overkill. v2 by default and design enables all of the shadow ranges as memory. So we just need to use those ranges. That should be much easier having to patch ADLO each time. It is fairly unlikely a writable ROM segment is
Ok.. Well when you put it that way yeah dosen't sound like its needed at all. It should probally just work.
Wait a minute. I don't see how this will work. To do the shadows you need to read from the bios chip, yet write to the RAM. Then re-enable both read and writes to go to RAM. This requires you to toggle some bits in the norhtbridge.
it is been a while but looking at loader.s
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/freebios/freebios/util/ADLO/loader.s?r...
it mentions sources as 0x8000 and 0x18000, so I guess they have been aready copied out of rom into the the low memory by linuxbios ???
(i think that's part of the ELF header specs to tell LB where to put the image).
wget http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/freebios/freebios/util/ADLO...
[adam@mtdew tmp]$ readelf -l elf-header-065kb.payload?rev=1.1
Elf file type is EXEC (Executable file) Entry point 0x7c00 There are 1 program headers, starting at offset 64
Program Headers: Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr FileSiz MemSiz Flg Align LOAD 0x000100 0x00007c00 0x00007c00 0x10400 0x10400 R E 0x100
I't will be awhile but I guess I will find out when I get there. I'm planning on still trying to use ADLO when I get V2 up and going on our board.
I'm looking forward hearing about results.
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/freebios/freebios/util/ADLO/loader.s?rev=1.1&view=autoit mentions sources as 0x8000 and 0x18000, so I guess they have been aready copied out of rom into the the low memory by linuxbios ???
(i think that's part of the ELF header specs to tell LB where to put the image).
So you think the ELF loader loads into ram and then loader moves it into the right position? I wonder if we could not just set things up where the ELF loader just loas it into the right spot in the first place. Perhaps that overwrites where the ELF code lives?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Richard Smith wrote:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/freebios/freebios/util/ADLO/loader.s?rev=1.1&view=autoit mentions sources as 0x8000 and 0x18000, so I guess they have been aready copied out of rom into the the low memory by linuxbios ???
(i think that's part of the ELF header specs to tell LB where to put the image).
So you think the ELF loader loads into ram and then loader moves it into the right position?
I think so.
I wonder if we could not just set things up where the ELF loader just loas it into the right spot in the first place. Perhaps that overwrites where the ELF code lives?
if the ram/shadowing was setup correctly _before_ payload is started, then perhaps.
but you still need to execute the switch to real mode code.
perhaps you could do that by the means of more elaborate elf header which tells
* load loader.s here * load pc bios here * load video bios here * jump to loader.s
as far as I belive elf should spport loading multiple segments into arbirary places in ram.
Adam Sulmicki adam@cfar.umd.edu writes:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Richard Smith wrote:
I wonder if we could not just set things up where the ELF loader just loas it into the right spot in the first place. Perhaps that overwrites where the ELF code lives?
if the ram/shadowing was setup correctly _before_ payload is started, then perhaps.
Which it should be fairly universally doable with freebios2.
but you still need to execute the switch to real mode code.
perhaps you could do that by the means of more elaborate elf header which tells
- load loader.s here
- load pc bios here
- load video bios here
- jump to loader.s
as far as I belive elf should spport loading multiple segments into arbirary places in ram.
Yes you can do that with ELF.
The big gotcha is going to be that there are pirq tables current stored at 0xf0000 that you are not going to want to stomp.
The fun question. Can I make the bochs bios useable on a system after the linux kernel has run. Load it with kexec and then boot windows?
If LinuxBIOS is the native bios this should be no extra challenge. If the native BIOS is something else life gets a little more interesting.
Eric
Yes you can do that with ELF.
The big gotcha is going to be that there are pirq tables current stored at 0xf0000 that you are not going to want to stomp.
Actually thats not that much of an issue. It currently stomps it already
ADLO has that table broken out into a single binary file. All I do is copy the table binary table generated with linubios into the adlo build file and it gets stuck in the adlo image. Loader.s copies it to a specific location. So really if you loaded loader and ADLO code after the linuxbios PIRQ table location and then tweaked loader to not make a PIRQ it should be fine.
Not haveing to do the PIRQ table copy would be nice but its pretty trival. A script to do it automatically would be easy.
The fun question. Can I make the bochs bios useable on a system after the linux kernel has run. Load it with kexec and then boot windows?
If LinuxBIOS is the native bios this should be no extra challenge. If the native BIOS is something else life gets a little more interesting.
That _is_ a fun quesition.. I don't think you would have too many problems though. The ADLO bios is used to running on systems that already have everything setup. It does minimal hardware setup. If you put everything in the right spot and modified the loader so that it didn't copy anything I think it will work.
kexec loads an elf right? So this would be pretty easy to test.
Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com writes:
Yes you can do that with ELF.
The big gotcha is going to be that there are pirq tables current stored at 0xf0000 that you are not going to want to stomp.
Actually thats not that much of an issue. It currently stomps it already
ADLO has that table broken out into a single binary file. All I do is copy the table binary table generated with linubios into the adlo build file and it gets stuck in the adlo image. Loader.s copies it to a specific location. So really if you loaded loader and ADLO code after the linuxbios PIRQ table location and then tweaked loader to not make a PIRQ it should be fine.
Not haveing to do the PIRQ table copy would be nice but its pretty trival. A script to do it automatically would be easy.
The fact that ADLO has to manually customized per board is what keeps it from being a lot more generally usable.
The fun question. Can I make the bochs bios useable on a system after the linux kernel has run. Load it with kexec and then boot windows?
If LinuxBIOS is the native bios this should be no extra challenge. If the native BIOS is something else life gets a little more interesting.
That _is_ a fun quesition.. I don't think you would have too many problems though. The ADLO bios is used to running on systems that already have everything setup. It does minimal hardware setup. If you put everything in the right spot and modified the loader so that it didn't copy anything I think it will work.
kexec loads an elf right? So this would be pretty easy to test.
Yes /sbin/kkexec loads an elf among other things.
Eric
Yes you can do that with ELF.
The big gotcha is going to be that there are pirq tables current stored at 0xf0000 that you are not going to want to stomp.
Actually thats not that much of an issue. It currently stomps it already
ADLO has that table broken out into a single binary file. All I do is copy the table binary table generated with linubios into the adlo build file and it gets stuck in the adlo image. Loader.s copies it to a specific location. So really if you loaded loader and ADLO code after the linuxbios PIRQ table location and then tweaked loader to not make a PIRQ it should be fine.
Not haveing to do the PIRQ table copy would be nice but its pretty trival. A script to do it automatically would be easy.
The fact that ADLO has to manually customized per board is what keeps it from being a lot more generally usable.
something I have been wondering. Suppose someone starts working on that IDE driver to fix it for once in bochs bios. Won't we find out that getting it work right is chip-set specific thing?
curently bochs bios is based on intel 440fx chipset or some such.
something I have been wondering. Suppose someone starts working on that IDE driver to fix it for once in bochs bios. Won't we find out that getting it work right is chip-set specific thing?
curently bochs bios is based on intel 440fx chipset or some such.
I don't think so. FILO does it right. Is it chipset specific?
* Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com [050131 17:20]:
something I have been wondering. Suppose someone starts working on that IDE driver to fix it for once in bochs bios. Won't we find out that getting it work right is chip-set specific thing?
curently bochs bios is based on intel 440fx chipset or some such.
I don't think so. FILO does it right. Is it chipset specific?
It just uses the generic IDE io interface. No chipset specifics are needed for IDE. Booting USB or PCMCIA is a bit trickier though.
Stefan
I don't think so. FILO does it right. Is it chipset specific?
It just uses the generic IDE io interface. No chipset specifics are needed for IDE. Booting USB or PCMCIA is a bit trickier though.
So there you go. Bochs shoud be able to be made generic. I think it is generic right now but I seem to remember that it did some stuff with delays rather than checking the busy flag and that was the difference between the ADLO that worked and the latest stuff.
So there you go. Bochs shoud be able to be made generic. I think it is generic right now but I seem to remember that it did some stuff with delays rather than checking the busy flag and that was the difference between the ADLO that worked and the latest stuff.
I still remmber an IDE code that would work with Samsung HDD's but not IBM hdd's. So it is possible to have disk/chipset specific code.
now all we need someone to fix the code :-)
I still remmber an IDE code that would work with Samsung HDD's but not IBM hdd's. So it is possible to have disk/chipset specific code.
Thats buggy IDE hardware either the host chipset or the drive. I've written lowlevel IDE routines for another project that do direct LBA sector reads and the interface to that is outlined in a spec and not in anyway chipset specific.
now all we need someone to fix the code :-)
Pehaps we could get the bochs people to do it. Some e-mail to them with our modified routines from ADLO would at least generate some feeback on what they thought the most "correct" setup is.
But is it currently even a problem? What does the latest bochs bios do that the ADLO dosen't?
now all we need someone to fix the code :-)
Pehaps we could get the bochs people to do it. Some e-mail to them with our modified routines from ADLO would at least generate some feeback on what they thought the most "correct" setup is.
better communication between developers of LB and BOCHS would be needed. I don't think anyone has spoken with new bochs bios maintainer yet.
they also get kind of sensitive when the fixes for real hardware does not quite work right on their virtual hardware...... after all windows xp works for them so for them it is "it ain't broke, don't fix" issue.
But is it currently even a problem? What does the latest bochs bios do that the ADLO dosen't?
we would prefer to avoid forking off the code.
they also get kind of sensitive when the fixes for real hardware does not quite work right on their virtual hardware...... after all windows xp works for them so for them it is "it ain't broke, don't fix" issue.
Well seems to me that if the movement toward "according to the spec" is causes a problem then the project as a whole has an issue that ought to be worked out.
But is it currently even a problem? What does the latest bochs bios do that the ADLO dosen't?
we would prefer to avoid forking off the code.
Who's we? I appear to be the only person other than perhaps you currently using ADLO.
Well seems to me that if the movement toward "according to the spec" is causes a problem then the project as a whole has an issue that ought to be worked out.
Actually thinking about this more... I can probally see thier point. They don't have hardware so implementation of all the flags and register correctness is just overhead.
However to even worry about going through this you gotta have a need first and currently I don't think I need it so someone else will probally have to do it or show me why I need it.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
But I actually think that is overkill. v2 by default and design enables all of the shadow ranges as memory. So we just need to use those ranges. That should be much easier having to patch ADLO each time. It is fairly unlikely a writable ROM segment is going to break anything.
FWIW, I actually do remember someone on the list saying that they had to disable rom write since the things DID break otherwise... anyone else remembers more?
But I actually think that is overkill. v2 by default and design enables all of the shadow ranges as memory. So we just need to use those ranges. That should be much easier having to patch ADLO each time. It is fairly unlikely a writable ROM segment is going to break anything.
FWIW, I actually do remember someone on the list saying that they had to disable rom write since the things DID break otherwise... anyone else remembers more?
it was in context of ollie's work, not adlo:
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:38:47 -0600 From: Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com To: LinuxBIOS linuxbios@clustermatic.org, YhLu YhLu@tyan.com Subject: Re: Running with VGA
it from normal BIOS, it will skip some operation. In this case, it is probably init font buffer.
I have word from an ATI tech who says they don't do that.
I should clarify this. I thought you guys were talking about zeroing the entry pointer so that if you copied it from ram you would not get a working copy.
Buy yes the ATI bios looks for a bit already set and if so then will skip RAM init and various other things.
My copy checks to see if it can write the into the shadow space before it self-modifies and if not I believe it tries to use some bits in the CMOS. So if you disable writes to your c000 shadow you might trick it to not skip things.
* Richard Smith smithbone@gmail.com [050126 18:40]:
What if we created a shadow.c file that was in the northbridge directory with a simple API type setup that enabled and disabled the various shadow ranges.
What about going the LinuxBIOS table way, providing an array of writes
typedef struct { device_t dev; unsigned pos; unsigned and_val; unsigned or_val; } modifier_t;
and then provide two arrays of modifier_t for enable_shadow and disable_shadow.
or whatever the according s-record representation will be in future ;-) Then we're on the safe side without hurting philosophy.
Stefan
-
Adam Sulmicki -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Richard Smith -
Ronald G. Minnich -
Stefan Reinauer