Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:20:02 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot0sio working for anyone? Message-ID: <20080209012002.GC30493@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20080209002918.GA85693@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> References: <20080208185405.GA1479@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> <47ACAE62.2060706@FreeBSD.org> <47ACB7BB.7090305@samsco.org> <20080209002918.GA85693@epia-2.farid-hajji.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 05:29:18PM -0700, cpghost wrote: > Yes, but the other way around is possible with a little help from a > patched or more capable BIOS. Such a BIOS could intercept the "display > character" (int $0x10, ah=0xe), "check for keypress" (int 0x16, ah=0x1), > and "get keypress" (int 0x16, ah=0x0) BIOS calls and reroute them to > or from the serial interface. > > With such a BIOS, /boot/boot0 would run just fine, because the > bootloader would be oblivious to this rerouting. > > Isn't it the approach taken by Soekris devices? These boxes have no This is the approach taken by [most] server motherboards which offer a serial console setting. I don't use boot0sio on my MP Opteron systems. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon? Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080209012002.GC30493>