From owner-freebsd-alpha Fri Dec 8 13:20:48 2000 From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 8 13:20:46 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058F737B400 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:20:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10278; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:16:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAiuaa7t; Fri Dec 8 14:16:31 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA23292; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:20:31 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200012082120.OAA23292@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Borg SRM? (was: Lynx test / 2nd attempt) To: diz@cafes.net (Mike Eldridge) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:20:31 +0000 (GMT) Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Mike Eldridge" at Dec 08, 2000 11:31:28 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: tlambert@usr01.primenet.com Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > Ok, how about a wrapper around SRM, delegating all the do-thing-quickly > > > tasks to the real and untarnisched SRM, but adding hooks for the more > > > mundane task of getting the first few blocks off a controller that SRM > > > pretends isn't there. > > > > My vision: don't we have enough problems with getting the alpha port > > working on the various alphas? I mean, do we really need extra complexities > > that might be triggered by hardware that has not been tested with SRM > > and needs weird hacks? > > Weird hacks suck in the grand scheme of things, especially when you need a > lot of them, it makes things ugly. :) > > So what about simply booting from a floppy with the neccessary kernel on > it and mounting the root filesystem from there? FreeBSD will recognize > the device whether SRM sees it or not, correct? Is this not a feasible > option? I think attempting to extend the SRM will fail, and is not the right approach to achieve the goals behind what I suggested. The most useful thing I see coming out of this is that people with Adaptec Controllers get paid to do the loader work on the AlphaBIOS, and the loader is known to work. This puts us one step colse to someone doing the work on getting FreeBSD running on the AlphaBIOS instead of the SRM code, and breaks the work down into smaller chunks, while still getting an actual payoff for attacking the first chunk. Without the switch to SRM glue, there's no payoff for the first chunk, so there is a lessened incentive for someone to do the work. Given that the SRM is confiremed to not zero memory on a warm boot, I think switching the code is a viable approach. It's a bit difficult, but it has a pay-off for Adaptec owners with SRM machines that can't otherwise boot off the controllers. I think that not requiring an NCR810 (vintage; newer ones like the NCR810a seem to not work) and a thin SCSI II disk (which I have a hard time finding) would also reduce the barrier for attracting other Alpha hackers, so the payoff might be bigger than you'd expect. I personally do _not_ have a system with the necessary PAL code or unsupported controller needed to attack this. 8-(. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message