[coreboot] why is firmware 32 bit as opposed to 64 bit
scott at notabs.org
Mon Aug 11 00:20:51 CEST 2014
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko [mailto:phcoder at gmail.com] wrote"
]On 10.08.2014 21:06, John de la Garza wrote:
]> I understand that the calling functions in 32 bit C uses the stack and
]> this is why coreboot needs to use cache as RAM. Doesn't 64 bit C use
]> registers to pass arguments to functions? If this is the case why not
]> run in 64 bit mode?
]> Also, even if cache as RAM is used and a stack is available, why not just
]> build a 64 bit binary? What are the advantages to using a 32 bit binary?
]long mode (64-bit) needs paging table in RAM. So no 64-bit for preram
]binary. For rest it's theoretically possible but it's too much hassle
]for no benefit.
The page table requirement is certainly a negative for x64 mode.
Another is code size. Code grows by several percent when compiled
for x64 mode. Use of x32 ABI could reduce the code size penalty,
but page tables are still required.
Most UEFI uses 32-bit mode until RAM is ready, then x64 mode
after that. Unlike coreboot, UEFI doesn't prioritize code size
minimization. Minimum code size is needed for fast boot, because
the code must be read from the relatively slow flash chip before
it can execute. Coreboot does prioritize fast boot. Switching
coreboot to x64 mode would result in a measurable boot time
degradation I believe.
One advantage of x64 mode is easy use of DRAM structures larger
then 4GB. Boot firmware is unlikely to benefit from this. Another
benefit of x64 mode is use of additional registers. The additional
registers can lead to faster code. But boot firmware is usually I/O
bound, so it is unlikely the extra registers could lead to a
measurable boot time reduction.
More information about the coreboot