On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, rdunlap wrote:
> Here's a patch to 2.2.19-pre7 that is essentially a backport of the
> 2.4.0 gate-A20 code.
>
> This speeds up booting on my fast-A20 board (Celeron 500 MHz, no KBC)
> from 2 min:15 seconds to .
>
> Kai, you reported that your system was OK with 2.4.0-test12-p
I think the way to go is to do the INT 15-first; possibly augmented with
a "test before even doing INT 15"...
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsub
rdunlap wrote:
>
> Alan-
>
> Here's a patch to 2.2.19-pre7 that is essentially a backport of the
> 2.4.0 gate-A20 code.
>
> This speeds up booting on my fast-A20 board (Celeron 500 MHz, no KBC)
> from 2 min:15 seconds to .
>
> Kai, you reported that your system was OK with 2.4.0-test12-pre6.
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Right now this is my interim patch (to clean test11). The thing to
> note is
> > that I decreased the keyboard controller timeout by a factor of about
> 167,
> > while making the "delay" a bit longer.
>
> Oh, btw, I for
Hi Peter.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Actually, I bet I know what's up.
>>
>> Want to bet $5 USD that suspend/resume saves the keyboard A20 state,
>> but does NOT save the fast-A20 gate information?
>>
>> So anything that enables A20 with only the fast A
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> The protected-mode switch in INT 15 is probably the least tested BIOS
> function ever. I wouldn't trust it, and relying on it will put further
> burden on embedded Linux developers, many of whom don't even have a
> BIOS. It is 'least tested' because there is no way
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > INT 15-2401 disable A20
> > INT 15-2402 query status A20
> > INT 15-2403 query A20 support (kdb or port 92)
> >
> > IBM classifies these functions as optional, but it is enabled on a lot
> > of
> > new BIOS, no know conflicts, thus we can call this function to enable
> > A20
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > > If you have had A20M# problems with any kernel -- recent or not --
> > > *please* try this patch, against 2.4.0-test12-pre5:
> >
> > Jus
> INT 15-2401 disable A20
> INT 15-2402 query status A20
> INT 15-2403 query A20 support (kdb or port 92)
>
> IBM classifies these functions as optional, but it is enabled on a lot
> of
> new BIOS, no know conflicts, thus we can call this function to enable
> A20,
> check the result and only afte
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
>
> Good question. The whole thing makes me nervous... in fact, perhaps we
> should really consider using the BIOS INT 15h interrupt to enter
> protected mode?
>
Maybe it is better to try with INT15 AX=2400 (Enable A20 gate).
INT 15-2400 enable A20
INT 15-2401 disa
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > > If you have had A20M# problems with any kernel -- recent or not --
> > > *please* try this patch, against 2.4.0-test12-pre5:
> >
> > Just a
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Right now this is my interim patch (to clean test11). The thing to note is
> > that I decreased the keyboard controller timeout by a factor of about 167,
> > while making the "delay" a bit longer.
>
> Oh, btw, I forgot t
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Okay, here is my latest attempt to find a way to toggle A20M# that
> > genuinely works on all machines -- including Olivettis, IBM Aptivas,
> > bizarre notebooks, yadda yadda.
>
> Can I suggest a slightly different hammer. Flip the A20 via the keyboard
> controller and set
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Right now this is my interim patch (to clean test11). The thing to note is
> that I decreased the keyboard controller timeout by a factor of about 167,
> while making the "delay" a bit longer.
Oh, btw, I forgot to ask people to give this a whirl. I
> Good question. The whole thing makes me nervous... in fact, perhaps we
> should really consider using the BIOS INT 15h interrupt to enter
> protected mode?
>From my experience with BIOS authors, only if Windows 98 uses the same function
with the same arguments, the same stuff top of stack and
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I might hack on using INT 15h to do the jump to protected mode, as ugly
> as it is, but I won't have time before my trip. It would require quite a
> bit of restructuring in setup.S, and would probably break LOADLIN.
Right now this is my interim pa
> Okay, here is my latest attempt to find a way to toggle A20M# that
> genuinely works on all machines -- including Olivettis, IBM Aptivas,
> bizarre notebooks, yadda yadda.
Can I suggest a slightly different hammer. Flip the A20 via the keyboard
controller and set the timeout to say 1 second. If
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Actually, I bet I know what's up.
>
> Want to bet $5 USD that suspend/resume saves the keyboard A20 state, but
> does NOT save the fast-A20 gate information?
>
> So anything that enables A20 with only the fast A20 gate will find that
> A20 is disabled again on resume.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > If you have had A20M# problems with any kernel -- recent or not --
> > *please* try this patch, against 2.4.0-test12-pre5:
>
> Just a datapoint: This patch doesn't fix the problem here (Sony
> PC
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > If you have had A20M# problems with any kernel -- recent or not --
> > *please* try this patch, against 2.4.0-test12-pre5:
>
> Just a datapoint: This patch doesn't fix the problem here (Sony
> PC
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> If you have had A20M# problems with any kernel -- recent or not --
> *please* try this patch, against 2.4.0-test12-pre5:
Just a datapoint: This patch doesn't fix the problem here (Sony
PCG-Z600NE). Still the spontaneous reboot exactly the moment I exp
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So the "orb $2,%al ; andb $0xfe,%al" will potentially change both of
> these. And I'd feel a hell of a lot more safe, if we avoided using 0x92
> except when we find that we absolutely _have_ to.
>
> How about making the keyboard controller timeouts shorter, and moving a
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Okay, here is my latest attempt to find a way to toggle A20M# that
> genuinely works on all machines -- including Olivettis, IBM Aptivas,
> bizarre notebooks, yadda yadda.
I really think that the 0x92 accesses are still unsafe.
I will bet that the
Okay, here is my latest attempt to find a way to toggle A20M# that
genuinely works on all machines -- including Olivettis, IBM Aptivas,
bizarre notebooks, yadda yadda.
The bizarre notebooks with broken SMM code are the ones I really worry
most about... there may very well be NO WAY to support the
24 matches
Mail list logo
