From owner-freebsd-alpha Sat Dec 4 23:23:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from lestat.nas.nasa.gov (lestat.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.33.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94E6151AA for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:23:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from thorpej@lestat.nas.nasa.gov) Received: from lestat (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lestat.nas.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19932; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:22:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912050722.XAA19932@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> To: der Mouse Cc: port-alpha@netbsd.org, alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Q: Compaq, *BSD and 'Linux-only' AlphaBIOS (fwd) Reply-To: Jason Thorpe From: Jason Thorpe Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 23:22:00 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 5 Dec 1999 02:08:43 -0500 (EST) der Mouse wrote: > The problem is with the implementation: when you can't *get* "their TLB > reloading code", you don't have enough info to write your own. :-( Okay, to nit-pick... :-) For the processor-specific bits, this is "easy"; all of the processor manuals are available. So, I could write my own TLB reloading code if I felt so inclined :-) The "hard" part is the model-specific bits. This means that I can't write my own interrupt routing code, etc. All the stuff that differs between models (even models with the same core logic). There's an amusing story related to this... basically, since interrupts were just about the *only* thing not specified in the architecture, apparently rivalry between groups within DEC (i.e. the groups working on the individual systems) resulted in the proliferation of different interrupt schemes we see today on the various systypes. I mean, really.. Look at the AlphaServer 1000 vs. 1000A. They differ by, like, the interrupt controller they use. How funny is that?! :-) -- Jason R. Thorpe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message