Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 16:13:36 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@CS.Duke.EDU>, freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alpha questions.. Message-ID: <E0wS8mH-0001Pj-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 May 1997 15:02:24 PDT." <Pine.NEB.3.93.970515145649.408k-100000@gnostic.cynic.net> References: <Pine.NEB.3.93.970515145649.408k-100000@gnostic.cynic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.NEB.3.93.970515145649.408k-100000@gnostic.cynic.net> Curt Sampson writes: : I'm not entirely up on the services the various flavours of PALcode : provide, but I'm extremely dubious that it would be easy, or even : possible, to have a single kernel work with more than one flavour : of PALcode. Looking at the instruction sets they provide it's : obvious that they are very different. The key here is that we can generally load in our own PALs (ala milo) and then it won't be an issue. : Also, I understand that the PALcode in MILO is not idential to the : PALcode in the SRM console firmware. So long as the few PALs that are called are functionally the same, it shouldn't be an issue.... Now trying to get this to work with both NT's PAL set and SRM's PAL set w/o loading our own might be very interesting indeed. And might be hard like you describe since we'd need a HAL-like layer over the PALs. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0wS8mH-0001Pj-00>