Hi Rino, I'm starting to develop in january or february and I'm giving myself a year roughly. Either it won't work, or it will work (if it won't two strikes on me). It won't be official OpenBSD port, that's up to the OpenBSD organisation to decide if it is worthy. Ask again in a year :-).
Best Regards, -peter On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:55:24AM +0000, Rino Rondan wrote: > <div>Hi, I was trying to use openbsd in iMac and Powermac g5 three > years ago , I had a lot of issues with disk so I was moved to g4 where > everything works so nice , I???m using Mac mini g4 for everything!! My > brother wrote this post regarding his > experience https://rebelion.digital/2020/12/11/como-transformar-tu-vieja-mac-mini-g4-en-un-server-p2p/ > .</div><div>Also I want to know how to use golang in g4 because it is not > supported . But I???m happy your are doing a good job so I can start again > testing in g5 , are your tested job in the main stable macppc version > ?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards </div><div>Rino<caret></caret></div><div><br></div><div > id="protonmail_mobile_signature_block"><div>Sent from ProtonMail > Mobile</div></div> <div><br></div><div><br></div>On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at > 12:43, Marco van Hulten <<a href="mailto:ma...@hulten.org"; > class="">ma...@hulten.org</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" > type="cite"> Je 12 Dec 11:59 skribis Peter:<br>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at > 11:06:33AM +0100, Marco van Hulten wrote:<br>> > Hello Peter,<br>> > ><br>> > Je 11 Dec 17:24 skribis Peter:<br>> > > Now that > POWER9 systems are pretty well supported, I'm setting away some time<br>> > > > next year to backport powerpc64 to the Mac G5. Is there anyone > already doing<br>> > > that? I already tried this once (based on > the macppc sources) but failed.<br>> ><br>> > [...]<br>> > > What would be specific advantages if OpenBSD/powerpc64 (over macppc)<br>> > > were backported to PowerPC 970?<br>><br>> For me it's using my G5 > (970FX cpu) without 2 GB limitation. My machine has<br>> 4 GB of RAM but > OpenBSD/macppc only supports max. 2 GB.<br><br>This is good to know, > especially as I had been looking for extra memory<br>for up to 4 GiB which I > thought was the limit for 32-bit systems. I did<br>not know until now that > this is different for PowerPC or the specific<br>macppc port. Please, > correct me if I misinterpret.<br><br>I suppose a true 64-bit OpenBSD version > for the G5 could also perform<br>better in general?<br><br>> Another thing > is it interests me very much, as a personal achievement, to know<br>> how > to port an OS to another platform. I've sat in the background with > the<br>> riscv64 team and learned quite a bit on how they do that. I also > attempted<br>> this before (alone) purchased some powerpc books, invested > a lot of time,<br>> trying to do this port, which failed. I miss the > exploring part.<br>><br>> A lot of things are already done, in the > powerpc64 port, I read a little<br>> for a bit how OpenBSD did the SLB > implementation in pmap.c. I compared it a<br>> little with mine that I > constructed from FreeBSD's in 2018 and there is a bit<br>> of difference > but the functions are very similar. Compare:<br>><br>> pmap_va2vsid() > in pmap.c<br>> > https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/arch/powerpc64/powerpc64/pmap.c?rev=1.54&content-type=text/plain<br>><br>> > with FreeBSD's or my port:<br>> va_to_vsid() in slb.c<br>> > https://gotweb.centroid.eu/cgi-bin/gotweb/gotweb?path=powerpc64.git&action=blob&commit=ec46d233f79ed298dde271748a49523aea1522ca&file=slb.c&folder=%2Fpowerpc64<br>><br>> > The similarities take me back to a time when I organised putting these > functions<br>> into my slb.c back when. I forgot right now what SLB > stands for exactly but<br>> it replaced the BAT functions from 32-bit > PowerPC which had to do with memory<br>> management and caching. I'll > look it up on monday when I am back home. Side<br>> Lookup Buffer popped > into my head afterwards writing this mail.<br>><br>> I noticed there > may be room to speed these up on the powerpc64 arch as the<br>> virtual to > physical mappings (PTE) are a LIST. I took my implementation from<br>> > FreeBSD original implementation which used a TREE, which could make > lookups<br>> faster if you pass it a virtual address to get a physical > address. But I<br>> understand that it's easy to get this wrong so a LIST > is likely better than<br>> a TREE for robustness. Also FreeBSD I believe > put its SPLAY tree<br>> implementation into a radix tree or something if I > remember correctly (I<br>> could be wrong here).<br>><br>> In no way > do I want to start arguing about this. I'm very much a student to<br>> > Mark Kettenis's teachings (and BSD's teachings too). Granted having > said<br>> this I invite corrections above.<br><br>From me you won't get > technical feedback on this. I was only curious<br>(from a user's > perspective) and don't have the technical background to<br>argue about these > efforts. If I'd be saying anything, I'd encourage<br>this effort! > :-)<br><br>> So having said a lot of "how" and not a lot of "why", another > point is I want<br>> to make use of my hardware to the fullest, a POWER9 > machine is expensive and<br>> I won't likely have one for another 2 or 3 > years, by which time a POWER10<br>> machine will likely exist, and I have > time for one more hobby project outside<br>> of my job (within reason), > starting in 2021. :-)<br><br>This makes sense to > me.<br><br>Marco<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div> > >
