OpenBIOS

openbios@openbios.org

4289 discussions

Re: [OpenBIOS] Licensing of the code.
by Dave Cinege 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

David Woodhouse wrote: > > dcinege(a)fuckthejunkmailers.org said: > > When it comes to a manufature making changes to support a peice of > > hardware on their boards, this means they must release their changes. > > Fair enough. Is BSD the same? Haven't looked at BSD fully, but I understand it to be more along the lines of a PD (free for all) type licence. For this type of project I would not want to do work that Award could come by and just take it for their own. I think a middle ground might be a licease that makes normal usage GPL like but allows the OpenBIOS group (I guess that's what we are) to sublicease it to companies for the purpose listed above. (I think the XFree86 project did something like this) --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

Re: [OpenBIOS] Licensing of the code.
by Dave Cinege 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

David Woodhouse wrote: > > dcinege(a)fuckthejunkmailers.org said: > > I don't think BSD is good for this, and a straight GPL wouldn't > > really be the right thing either. > > Why so? It is not possible to distribute a BIOS in a completly libary type form.When it comes to a manufature making changes to support a peice of hardware on their boards, this means they must release their changes. If this code is a dependant on a peice of propritary or sub licensed peice of hardware they may not be able to (or just won't) use our BIOS. IF the finaly product is VERY modular and VERY flexable, then a regular GPL might not cause problems. --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

Re: [OpenBIOS] Licensing of the code.
by Dave Cinege 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > Hi. > > > OpenBIOS would mean something else. OpenBIOS would mean that we > > publish our specs, not that we are free. Look at sparc OpenProm. > > > > BAD idea. > > I don't really see that. Look at OpenScape. That project was founded to > promote development of the free netscape source. Yes. Another reason I made the change is GNU is almost like a dirty word in the corporate world. I think all of our greatest dream is that this si successful and motherboard makers start to directly use it. This brings up another problem that we may as well get into now. Licensing. Early on we need to decide where that stands and the effects that it has for pontencial commercial outcome. I don't think BSD is good for this, and a straight GPL wouldn't really be the right thing either. --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

Re: [OpenBIOS] OpenBIOS Homepage
by Dave Cinege 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > Hi.. > > I've set up a preliminary OpenBIOS homepage today. It's available at > > http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/ I just talked with Stefan. This will be the german mirror, of the master site below. --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

Re: gnu-bios or openbios?
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > I was just thinking about the name of this list (and I guess the name of the > forth coming project) > > Well a BIOS certainly isn't Unix, but I don't see how they are at all > related. > I think OpenBIOS is more appropreate and sounds a bit better as well. OpenBIOS would mean something else. OpenBIOS would mean that we publish our specs, not that we are free. Look at sparc OpenProm. BAD idea. Pavel -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

2 1

Re: [OpenBIOS] BIOS call guides?
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > Could somebody point me to where I could find a list of all the BIOS > calls? I know I've seen them before, but I am coming up blank now. Ralf Brown's Interrupt list? > If I'm gonna start to think about coding, I have to know what to > code :) Do you want to write it in assembly or in C? How are you going to deal with 32 bit code? -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

2 1

Re: A Plan. (was Re: Some Questions and ideas for gnu-bios)
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > > I think we can assume pentiums at the least since only the pent > > m/b's and above really have flashable bois's. So why not go for a pent > > optimised compiler and maybe have someone check the asm producded <evil > > grin> > > personally, i think the gnu-bios should be done in 100% assembly, > for I do not think so. Well, it would be cleaner to write in assembly, but you do not want to write neither bios setup nor grub in anything else than C. And if you stick with gcc 2.7.2, compilers are ok. Pavel -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

Re: A Plan. (was Re: Some Questions and ideas for gnu-bios)
by Pavel Machek 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

Hi! > > Right - that's enough of the theoretical waffle. What we need is a plan. Lots > > and lots of these projects have died out because people spent too long talking > > about them and did bugger all work. > > Well it's ony been a few days.... : > > > > I'd like to see a _really_ primitive skeleton BIOS up and running - just > > enough to boot Linux, with no chipset handling or anything. > > I was thinking about this. IMO if you put grub stage1 + 2 in the flash that > just may be enough. Hmm. I took a look at grub, and it is pretty ugly. I patched it quite a bit. -- I'm really pavel(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-). --- OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/ openbios-request(a)linkscape.net Body: un/subscribe Problems? dcinege(a)psychosis.com

1 0

compiler speed
by Stefan Reinauer 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

Hi, I played a bit with different gcc versions on Alpha and I noticed that when executing the FIB test from http://home.iae.nl/users/mhx/fib.html in paflof, results are _a lot_ slower with gcc 3.1.1 than with 2.96 (SuSE 7.1 Alpha release) Not only is the 3.1.1 binary about 20% bigger, it also 22% slower. The test: HEX : FIB ( x -- y ) RECURSIVE DUP 2 > IF DUP 1- RECURSE SWAP 2- RECURSE + EXIT THEN DROP 1 ; 28 FIB BYE The results: gcc 2.96 binary real 1m55.642s user 1m55.479s sys 0m0.014s gcc 3.1.1 binary real 2m21.763s user 2m21.533s sys 0m0.027s Where does this come from? Is the code generated by gcc 3.x really that slow, compared to 2.96? Do we make some assumptions that might cause this? (How badly do gotos break code flow analysis for example?) What can we do against this? Having more prim words will speed up the whole thing, but probably not really make it easier for the compiler to optimize. Comments? Stefan.. -- The x86 isn't all that complex - it just doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Mike Johnson, Leader of 80x86 Design at AMD Microprocessor Report (1994) - To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo(a)freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/ - free your system..

3 7

Jump to page: