Inlined.
On 28.11.2006, at 19:55, bibo,mao wrote:
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:46, bibo,mao wrote:
> yes, x84_64EFI starts with 64-bit long mode and page enabled
(virtual
> address equals physical address) if it is x86_64 efi bios, it
is defined in
> section
Johan Rydberg wrote:
"bibo,mao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If kernel image is bzImage, x64 efi bootloader need switch to 32 bit
> protect mode(or real mode) from 64 bit long mode, and if kernel
> image is gzipped/plain format, efi bootloader can directly jump to
> 64-bit kernel entry addr
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:46, bibo,mao wrote:
> yes, x84_64EFI starts with 64-bit long mode and page enabled(virtual
> address equals physical address) if it is x86_64 efi bios, it is defined in
> section 2.3.4 of UEFI Specification Version 2.0.
>
> If kernel i
"bibo,mao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If kernel image is bzImage, x64 efi bootloader need switch to 32 bit
> protect mode(or real mode) from 64 bit long mode, and if kernel
> image is gzipped/plain format, efi bootloader can directly jump to
> 64-bit kernel entry address without mode switch.
M
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:46, bibo,mao wrote:
> yes, x84_64EFI starts with 64-bit long mode and page enabled(virtual
> address equals physical address) if it is x86_64 efi bios, it is defined in
> section 2.3.4 of UEFI Specification Version 2.0.
>
> If kernel image is bzImage, x64 efi bootload
Quoting "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:29, Johan Rydberg wrote:
> > "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
> >
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:29, Johan Rydberg wrote:
> "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
> >> architectures will use 64-
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:29, Johan Rydberg wrote:
> "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
> >> architectures will use 64-bit types.
> >
> > No. Both shou
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
>> architectures will use 64-bit types.
>
> No. Both should use 32-bit, because GRUB transfers control in 32-bit mode.
> Pa
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 05:36 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 25 November 2006 05:08, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > OK, I don't have a problem with this. We should clarify the spec.
> > It will limit e.g. module sizes and addresses to less than 4GB, but
> > practically speaking I don't t
On Saturday 25 November 2006 05:08, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> OK, I don't have a problem with this. We should clarify the spec.
> It will limit e.g. module sizes and addresses to less than 4GB, but
> practically speaking I don't think that is too big a deal.
I agree, although I don't know what wil
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 04:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
> > architectures will use 64-bit types.
>
> No. Both should use 32-bit, because GRUB transfers control in 32-b
On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both
> architectures will use 64-bit types.
No. Both should use 32-bit, because GRUB transfers control in 32-bit mode.
Passing 64-bit addresses would be useless in this case. Note
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 04:10 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 25 November 2006 03:09, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 12:55 -0800, Joe Bonasera wrote:
> > > If grub2 really needs to make the
> > > format/content variant, I would much rather see it vary based on the
>
On Saturday 25 November 2006 03:09, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 12:55 -0800, Joe Bonasera wrote:
> > If grub2 really needs to make the
> > format/content variant, I would much rather see it vary based on the
> > target OS type. Or better yet, just always use the larger size data
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 12:55 -0800, Joe Bonasera wrote:
> If grub2 really needs to make the
> format/content variant, I would much rather see it vary based on the
> target OS type. Or better yet, just always use the larger size data
> types/content - even for 32 bit booting.
I agree; I think exper
16 matches
Mail list logo
