[PATCH] libopenbios/bootinfo_load.c: Implement Mac OS 9.2 boot script support
by Programmingkid
This patch makes booting Mac OS 9.2 possible. It replaces all occurrences of
>r and r> with sub_>r and sub_r>. This allows for the return stack to be left
alone. This patch also makes it so that the boot script is executed one line at a time.
Signed-off-by: John Arbuckle <programmingkidx(a)gmail.com>
Note: this patch depends on the strstr() and return stack substitution patches.
Index: libopenbios/bootinfo_load.c
===================================================================
--- libopenbios/bootinfo_load.c (revision 1395)
+++ libopenbios/bootinfo_load.c (working copy)
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#include "libopenbios/bootinfo_load.h"
#include "libopenbios/ofmem.h"
#include "libc/vsprintf.h"
+#include "libc/string.h"
//#define DEBUG_BOOTINFO
@@ -116,6 +117,75 @@
return LOADER_NOT_SUPPORT;
}
+// Replace all occurrences of orig_str in buffer with replace_str
+static void replace_string(char *buffer, const char *orig_str, const char *replace_str)
+{
+ char *ptr;
+ int index, new_buf_index = 0;
+ const int max_size = 5000;
+ char *new_buffer = malloc(max_size * sizeof(char));
+
+ for (index = 0; index < strlen(buffer); index++) {
+ if (buffer[index] == orig_str[0]) {
+ ptr = strstr(buffer + index, orig_str);
+
+ // if we encountered an orig_str in the buffer
+ if (index == (ptr - buffer)) {
+ sprintf(new_buffer + new_buf_index, "%s ", replace_str);
+ new_buf_index += strlen(replace_str) + 1;
+ index += strlen(orig_str);
+ continue;
+ }
+ }
+ new_buffer[new_buf_index++] = buffer[index];
+ }
+
+ // copy new_buffer into buffer
+ for (index = 0; index < strlen(new_buffer); index++) {
+ buffer[index] = new_buffer[index];
+ }
+ buffer[index+1] = '\0';
+}
+
+/* Replace >r and r> with sub_>r and sub_r> */
+static void replace_return_stack_words(char *bootscript)
+{
+ const char *find_str1 = ">r";
+ const char *replace_str1 = "sub_>r";
+ const char *find_str2 = "r>";
+ const char *replace_str2 = "sub_r>";
+
+ replace_string(bootscript, find_str1, replace_str1);
+ replace_string(bootscript, find_str2, replace_str2);
+}
+
+/* Runs the bootscript one line at a time */
+void run_script(char *bootscript)
+{
+ int index = 0, buf_index = 0;
+ char c;
+ char *buffer = malloc(1000 * sizeof(char));
+
+ while (1) {
+ c = bootscript[index];
+
+ // fill up buffer
+ while (c != '\n' && c != '\r' && c != '\0') {
+ buffer[buf_index++] = c;
+ c = bootscript[++index];
+ }
+ buffer[buf_index] = '\0';
+ buf_index = 0;
+ index++;
+ DPRINTF("%s\n", buffer);
+ feval(buffer);
+ if (c == '\0') {
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ free(buffer);
+}
+
/*
Parse SGML structure like:
<chrp-boot>
@@ -209,9 +279,6 @@
script = 0;
bootscript[scriptlen] = '\0';
- DPRINTF("got bootscript %s\n",
- bootscript);
-
scriptvalid = -1;
break;
@@ -261,8 +328,8 @@
/* If the payload is bootinfo then we execute it immediately */
if (scriptvalid) {
- DPRINTF("bootscript: %s\n", bootscript);
- feval(bootscript);
+ replace_return_stack_words(bootscript);
+ run_script(bootscript);
}
else
DPRINTF("Unable to parse bootinfo bootscript\n");
2 years
- 4
- 9
Detoke and the Openbios video console driver?
by Jd Lyons
I’ve been trying to add graphics acceleration to Qume-PPC and have a few questions about how Open Bios deals with FCode option roms.
I noticed when I build Openbios, it creates a file called QEMU,VGA.bin. Is this file the video console driver for Openbios?
I’d like to replace it with an FCode option rom from one of the proprietary Video cards supported by the Mac OS, is this feasible?
What parts of Openbios would need to be changed to support proprietary FCode option roms from cards like the ATI,Rage 128 Pro?
Would I need to rewrite some part of Openbios to support the VGA?
The file QEMU,VGA doesn’t appear to be Tokenized, can Openbios deal with Tokenized option roms, or do I need to pass it a Detokenized Rom?
I noticed Fcode-Utils has a detoke tool, I’d like to use it to detoke FCode roms, but I’m not sure of it’s usage, do I need to remove the PCI Header from the FCode rom?
If so, how long is the header, is it a standard length, or does it vary from Rom to Rom?
Thanks,
JD
2 years, 11 months
- 3
- 2
[PATCH 3/4 v3] arch/ppc/qemu: Add a node for the other (empty) PCI bus to the device tree
by BALATON Zoltan
QEMU emulates two of the three PCI buses found on real hardware because
some clients seem to need both and fail with only one present, but
OpenBIOS only handles a single PCI bus and initialises and puts in the
device tree only one of these: the second one which is where devices are
connected and also marks it bus 0. However, clients getting info from the
device tree may not know about this and thinking there is only one PCI
bus they erroneously use the address of the first bus to access PCI
config registers for devices on the second bus which silently fails as
these requests will go to the other empty bus emulated and return invalid
values. Devices mapped via MMIO still appear to work but they may not be
correctly initialised and some cards are not detected because of this.
Until support for multiple PCI buses is implemented add an empty node in
the device tree for the uninitialised bus to let clients know about it.
This is still not entirely correct as bus-range property does not match
real hardware but this fixes detecting PCI devices (such as USB) under
MorphOS and may also fix enabling the bus master bit needed with some
network cards and allow the workaround for this to be reverted.
Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <balaton(a)eik.bme.hu>
---
arch/ppc/qemu/init.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
v3: Move device tree patching in its own function and call it from
init (otherwise same as v2, take which you like)
v2: Move to init.c from tree.fs and only add it for mac99
Patches 1 and 2 from original series
https://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/openbios/2016-November/009825.html
https://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/openbios/2016-November/009824.html
are still valid and needed, patch 4 was already applied so only this
one (3/4) is resent but 1 and 2 should be applied as well with this.
diff --git a/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c b/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c
index ffbf08d..46a56a0 100644
--- a/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c
+++ b/arch/ppc/qemu/init.c
@@ -668,6 +668,48 @@ static void kvm_of_init(void)
fword("finish-device");
}
+static void empty_pci_bus_init(void)
+{
+ if (machine_id == ARCH_MAC99) {
+ /* Add empty node for first pci bus */
+ /* Remove this when pci driver is fixed to handle multiple buses */
+ activate_device("/");
+ fword("new-device");
+ push_str("pci");
+ fword("device-name");
+ push_str("pci");
+ fword("device-type");
+ PUSH(0xf0000000);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ PUSH(0x02000000);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ fword("encode+");
+ push_str("reg");
+ fword("property");
+ PUSH(3);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ push_str("#address-cells");
+ fword("property");
+ PUSH(2);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ push_str("#size-cells");
+ fword("property");
+ PUSH(1);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ push_str("#interrupt-cells");
+ fword("property");
+ PUSH(0);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ PUSH(0);
+ fword("encode-int");
+ fword("encode+");
+ push_str("bus-range");
+ fword("property");
+ fword("finish-device");
+ device_end();
+ }
+}
+
/*
* filll ( addr bytes quad -- )
*/
@@ -755,6 +797,7 @@ arch_of_init(void)
openbios_init();
modules_init();
setup_timers();
+ empty_pci_bus_init();
#ifdef CONFIG_DRIVER_PCI
ob_pci_init();
#endif
--
2.7.4
2 years, 11 months
- 2
- 3
[PATCH] mac-parts.c: restrict checking of partition status flags to CHRP partitions only
by Mark Cave-Ayland
Early versions of MacOS X don't correctly set the partition status flags when
creating the OS partition. Relax the status flag checks so they are only applied
to CHRP partitions which allows us to both meet the intention of the CHRP
specification and also enable OpenBIOS to boot OS partitions from OSs such as
MacOS X DPs.
With thanks to Steven Troughton-Smith <steve(a)highcaffeinecontent.com> for the
in-depth investigation.
Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland(a)ilande.co.uk>
---
packages/mac-parts.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/packages/mac-parts.c b/packages/mac-parts.c
index 16c87ca..d4faf71 100644
--- a/packages/mac-parts.c
+++ b/packages/mac-parts.c
@@ -158,32 +158,31 @@ macparts_open( macparts_info_t *di )
DPRINTF("found partition %d type: %s with status %x\n", i, par.pmPartType, __be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus));
+ /* Unfortunately Apple's OF implementation doesn't follow the OF PowerPC CHRP bindings
+ * and instead will brute-force boot the first valid partition it finds with a
+ * type of either "Apple_Boot", "Apple_HFS" or "DOS_FAT_". Here we store the id
+ * of the first partition that matches these criteria to use as a fallback later
+ * if required. */
+ if (apple_parnum == -1 &&
+ (strcmp(par.pmPartType, "Apple_Boot") == 0 ||
+ strcmp(par.pmPartType, "Apple_Bootstrap") == 0 ||
+ strcmp(par.pmPartType, "Apple_HFS") == 0 ||
+ strcmp(par.pmPartType, "DOS_FAT_") == 0)) {
+ apple_parnum = i;
+
+ DPRINTF("Located Apple OF fallback partition %d\n", apple_parnum);
+ }
+
/* If we have a valid, allocated and readable partition... */
if( (__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsValid) &&
- (__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsAllocated) &&
- (__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsReadable) ) {
-
- /* Unfortunately Apple's OF implementation doesn't follow the OF PowerPC CHRP bindings
- * and instead will brute-force boot the first valid partition it finds with a
- * type of either "Apple_Boot", "Apple_HFS" or "DOS_FAT_". Here we store the id
- * of the first partition that matches these criteria to use as a fallback later
- * if required. */
-
- if (apple_parnum == -1 &&
- (strcmp(par.pmPartType, "Apple_Boot") == 0 ||
- strcmp(par.pmPartType, "Apple_Bootstrap") == 0 ||
- strcmp(par.pmPartType, "Apple_HFS") == 0 ||
- strcmp(par.pmPartType, "DOS_FAT_") == 0)) {
- apple_parnum = i;
-
- DPRINTF("Located Apple OF fallback partition %d\n", apple_parnum);
- }
+ (__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsAllocated) &&
+ (__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsReadable) ) {
/* If the partition is also bootable and the pmProcessor field matches "PowerPC" (insensitive
* match), then according to the CHRP bindings this is our chosen partition */
for (j = 0; j < strlen(par.pmProcessor); j++) {
par.pmProcessor[j] = tolower(par.pmProcessor[j]);
- }
+ }
if ((__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsBootValid) &&
strcmp(par.pmProcessor, "powerpc") == 0) {
@@ -225,8 +224,7 @@ macparts_open( macparts_info_t *di )
if(! ((__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsValid) &&
(__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsAllocated) &&
(__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartStatus) & kPartitionAUXIsReadable)) ) {
- DPRINTF("Partition %d is not valid, allocated and readable\n", parnum);
- goto out;
+ DPRINTF("WARNING: Partition %d is not valid, allocated and readable\n", parnum);
}
ret = -1;
@@ -235,7 +233,6 @@ macparts_open( macparts_info_t *di )
size = (long long)__be32_to_cpu(par.pmPartBlkCnt) * bs;
if (want_bootcode) {
-
/* If size == 0 then fail because we requested bootcode but it doesn't exist */
size = (long long)__be32_to_cpu(par.pmBootSize);
if (!size) {
--
1.7.10.4
2 years, 11 months
- 1
- 1
Re: [OpenBIOS] Beginners How-To for DTS and OpenFirmware?
by Michael
Hello Zoltan, hey list,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 07:15:21PM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> ...
> For forth commands I've found this page useful (not sure if this is linked
> from somewhere):
> http://www.firmworks.com/QuickRef.html
Thank you, I found this (and more) last week. The OLPC sites are the
best for me:
1: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Open_Firmware
2: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Forth_Lessons
3: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Cross_Compiling_Open_Firmware
> ...
> This is a bit confusing. There are multiple implementations of the IEEE
> standard (commonly referred to as Open Firmware) and one of these is also
> called Open Firmware. These are listed under Implementations on the left of
> the page at www.openfirmware.info. Another implementation used by QEMU for
Yes and I looked at them. But they are either very old or not usable for
ppc (too much work to implement a new arch).
> ...
> talking about Open Firmware: the standard or the implementation with the
> same name.
One thing is left which confuses me: In wikipedia and you say, that you
use the name "Open Firmware" (also, besides as name for a standard) for
an implementation. OK.
But the website gives the impression (and G 3 says), that the implementation
has the name "OpenBIOS"...
So I have two statements which don't fit well. Please remember that I am
new to this and did not live through the history.
> ...
> Actually running OpenBIOS on real hardware is not something that is well
> tested (I'm not sure if it was ever tried but I think it wasn't done
> recently) so if you try to do that be prepared for likely needing some
The OLPC project did it, e.g.
> fixing. This is true for any implementation that does not support the
> hardware you want to run it on, then you likely need to port it.
That there will be the need for porting was clear.
> ...
> it's enough to have the basics in there. Not sure how much up to date is
> this but this is discussed in the kernel documentation here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/booting-without-of.txt
>
Thank you, I missed this source.
> As for giving the device tree to OpenBIOS I think it should just know it or
> construct it from discovering the hardware as the point of the device tree
> is to describe the hardware for the operating system so the firmware should
> know the hardware and provide the device tree. It does not get it from
The "firmware" is our handmade init-assemblercode. It has to enable the
machine (beginning from Adam...) to run C-code in its RAM.
If there is no software-interface, then we provide the device-tree maybe in
forth or in a blob. Just thinking loudly.
> ...
> In fact OpenBIOS does not have that many drivers but maybe the basics are
> there, only the platform specific init code might need to be adapted for a
That would be very nice. We give it a try. Maybe with help from you / the
list.
> new board. For ppc these would be in arch/ppc. Running on QEMU is quite a
> bit simpler as we can skip a lot of init code (such as memory controller or
> other hardware) so maybe these are not well implemented or buggy as they
> were not tested with real hardware for a while.
> ...
Did you use OpenBIOS in a recent qemu and have you been able to remote-debug
it there? I was able to load and run the old OpenBIOS code (from svn repo)
on "qemu-system-ppc".
Thank you for your time and suggestions, greetings,
Michael
2 years, 11 months
- 7
- 10