Re: [LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

2 years ago I lucked out and picked up a copy of MSVC 1.52 on ebay for a
couple of bucks.  It might be worth checking ebay.

Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:31 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: LinuxBIOS
Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] GX eval board
> > MASM 6.11 + Ms Visual C++ 1.52 (MSVC 1.52) + SLIBC7.LIB works fine.

I
> > tried it.
> I think my tools may be too _new_.  Even the cl that comes with VC 6

is pukeing
>

Ok.  So I read the docs... Yep.  You need MSVC 1.52.  I don't have
that.  Bummer.

[LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

[Stefan Reinauer]

* [e-mail]  [060321 16:14]:
> 2 years ago I lucked out and picked up a copy of MSVC 1.52 on ebay for a
> couple of bucks.  It might be worth checking ebay.

Does it not make sense to port that code to compile with gas?

What's that magic that keeps the dependency to some pre-civilization
microsoft product?

Without me knowing the code it feels a bit against the LinuxBIOS idea to
ship binary stuff because noone can compile it.

Just my 2ct.

Stefan

[LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

[Ronald G Minnich]

Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> [e-mail]  [060321 16:14]:
> > 2 years ago I lucked out and picked up a copy of MSVC 1.52 on ebay for a
> > couple of bucks.  It might be worth checking ebay.
>
> Does it not make sense to port that code to compile with gas?

it will happen.

ron

[LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

[Richard Smith]

> Does it not make sense to port that code to compile with gas?
>
> What's that magic that keeps the dependency to some pre-civilization
> microsoft product?

You have to produce 16-bit output.  Both for assembly and the couple
of C files that are in there.  You could use NASM for the 16 bit
assembly but I'm not sure about the C. OpenWatcom still has a 16 bit C
compiler in thier offerings.  I pulled it down but I've not really
groked the license yet.

The ADLO code in V1 is mixed C/asm in 16-bit mode with NASM and gcc. 
I'm going to go back and take a look at how that was done.
> Without me knowing the code it feels a bit against the LinuxBIOS idea to
> ship binary stuff because noone can compile it.

I agree fully. It should be ported.  It will be a large project to
undertake since there is a pile of assembly code.

I also don't fully yet grok the inner workings of the VSA.  All you
who are in this deeper perhaps can comment.  Is there any hardware
reason that the VSA _has_ to be in 16-bit mode?  I know orginally it
had to be 16-bit for the BIOS callbacks, but we don't require all that
legacy stuff.

Can we port the necessary parts over to protected mode?

[LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

[Li-Ta Lo]

On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 09:59 -0600, Richard Smith wrote:
> I also don't fully yet grok the inner workings of the VSA.  All you
> who are in this deeper perhaps can comment.  Is there any hardware
> reason that the VSA _has_ to be in 16-bit mode?  I know orginally it
> had to be 16-bit for the BIOS callbacks, but we don't require all that
> legacy stuff.

One problem is the VSA code is executed under the SMM. The SMM i
is 16-bit mode by default. Theoretically, we can have a 16-bit to
32-bit switch upon the entry of SMM and port the VSA to 32-bit
mode. I am not so sure if it is worth to do this.
> Can we port the necessary parts over to protected mode?

[LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

[Ronald G Minnich]

Richard Smith wrote:
> I also don't fully yet grok the inner workings of the VSA.  All you
> who are in this deeper perhaps can comment.  Is there any hardware
> reason that the VSA _has_ to be in 16-bit mode?  I know orginally it
> had to be 16-bit for the BIOS callbacks, but we don't require all that
> legacy stuff.

not that I know of.
> Can we port the necessary parts over to protected mode?

I want to have as little as possible in bios. NO reason not to put 
lots of stuff directly in linux.

ron

[LinuxBIOS] GX eval board

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Ronald G Minnich  [060321 18:57]:
> > Can we port the necessary parts over to protected mode?
>
> I want to have as little as possible in bios. NO reason not to put 
> lots of stuff directly in linux.

Except it wont help when you do Plan9 or BSD ;-)

Stefan