[OpenBIOS] What is the point, a new BIOS or utilities in ROM?

[Benjamin Scott]

CA = Chris Arguin <chris.arguin at unh.edu>
CA> Assuming we shadowed the BIOS (no big deal) and wrote all the
hardware
CA> abstraction in protected mode, then OSes like Linux could use BIOS
calls
CA> without any of the delay currently associated with BIOS calls. I
think
CA> that this is the "Right Way"

  The "Right Way" is most definately *not* to have device-drivers in the
motherboard firmware.  If you are going to do this at all, you should
have a hardware abstraction API in the motherboard firmware.  That API
would be the common ground between the OS and the hardware.  You
wouldn't need kernel-level device drivers at all.

  Obviously this is never going to happen on the PC, but let's assume it
could.

  Problem #1: To update the device driver, you have to update the
firmware for the device.  So every device has to either (1) have flash
ROM or (2) be a pain-in-the-ass to upgrade.  Neither solution appeals to
me.

  Problem #2: Every time a new technogy comes out, you lack a
hardware-level API.  You have a mess even worse then DOS.  At least with
DOS, you could patch and hack the OS and/or interrupt table to get by. 
I don't even want to think about every OEM patching and hacking at my
firmware!  :-)

  As for us writting our own device drivers and putting them in the
BIOS, I really want to know: Why?  :-)

CA> This is true. But what if my harddrive crashes.

  What if your flash ROM melts?  :-)  I'm just pointing out that you can
always create a situation that prvents you from booting.  That is one
reason why system admin types have jobs.  <g>

CA> Tradionally I could still boot off of floppy. If critical sections
of my BIOS
CA> were on that disk, I would have to have a floppy with that BIOS
code. It just
CA> starts to get a little ugly.

  I do agree.  Compaq puts part of their BIOS setup interface on the
system hard disk shipped with the system in some of their PCs.  Needless
to say, things can get very ugly if you don't have that around.  We
could have a situation like some early Sun systems, where if the system
disk crashed, you had to ship the entire system back to Sun for repair. 
:-) 

  (Disclaimer: I've never had to do that, but I've been told about it. 
I may have been told wrong.)

> I've argued that it could be done by keeping "extentions" on the disk,

  One man's extension is the next lifeform's critical function.  :-)

> I think that one of the modules that a lot of people will want is a more
> extensive bootup test, or maybe a secondary, optional, intensive test.

  I'll drink to that!  Well, actually, I'll drink to anything, but it's
still a good idea.  <grin>

						-- Ben <hawk at ttlc.net>


---
OpenBIOS -- http://www.linkscape.net/openbios/
openbios-request at linkscape.net   Body: un/subscribe
Problems?  dcinege at psychosis.com