Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 01:57:14 +0200 (MEST) From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org (John Baldwin) Cc: eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Subject: Re: boot2 broken ? (booting from pst fails) Message-ID: <200304112357.BAA02170@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030411144252.jhb@FreeBSD.org> from John Baldwin at "Apr 11, 2003 2:42:52 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > - Q: Is btx actually switching to real mode for int 13 ? Could it be > > that there's a bug in that code ? > > No, we run it in virtual 86 mode, and it is likely that their BIOS > routine just can't handle that. > > > - Q: Are there any alternatives how i could boot a 4.8 or 5.0 freebsd > > solely from the disk ? (I guess i could try to install a linux and > > then use liloboot, but that also uses the btx code from loader...) > > Nope. :( Other than get promise to fix their BIOS maybe. - Why is the BIOS routine not run in real mode ? Would it be hard trying to change BTX so that it executes the interrupt in real mode ? - Is there actually a requirement for a BIOS to work correctly in virtual mode ? I was under the assumption that BIOS is always only assumed to need to work correctly in real mode. If this is not true, then i would welcome if you could point me to an official PC98, .. (or whatever) document WIntel , or whoever leads the conspiracy what officially are requirements for a "PC"). Without such a reference i think anybody would have a hard time arguing the case of requesting support for virtual mode from the BIOS of some HW vendor, right ? - Do you know wether Linux relies on virtual mode in booting their kernel ? because the vendor in my case is officially suporting linux. I guess i need to test setting that up and see if i can boot it from the disk. Thanks Toerless
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304112357.BAA02170>