From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 5 20:34:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61DB16A4CE; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:34:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freebee.digiware.nl (dsl439.iae.nl [212.61.63.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D1943D2F; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:34:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: from [212.61.27.71] (dual.digiware.nl [212.61.27.71]) by freebee.digiware.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA5KYP5p070451; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 21:34:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Message-ID: <418BE3D2.2030205@withagen.nl> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:34:26 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <418AB176.9030604@withagen.nl> <200411041835.46465.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <418AC4B3.9020305@withagen.nl> <200411051400.34684.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200411051400.34684.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Booting questions .... X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:34:28 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: [about the loader having flat addressspace....] >>But is it unsegmented? (perhaps I have a wrong idea of a flat address >>space) > > > Yes, it is unsegmented. You can translate physical addresses to virtual > addresses using PTOV() and vice versa using VTOP(). I've run accross these calls, just need to figure out how to work them. >>What I mean with this is that I can iterate from 0xa000 to 0xffffffff with >>a "char *p" and do test_bytes( 0xa000, 0xffffffff, 0xff). (assuming this >>all has memory) > Yes. Would be nice.... >>Next is then which ranges are valid to test, and then things really start >>to get complicated and arch dependant. Which is why I ended up in machdep.c >>right after the setting up of the memory ranges. > > Heh, the above memory mapping is also i386 specific. Alpha only has a small > bit of memory mapped in the loader, same with sparc64, etc. Ehhhh, again more reasons to put this in the kernel, or something that closely resembles a kernel. --WjW