OKUJI Yoshinori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't considered applying the Multiboot Specification to other
> architectures.
I know. But I think this is something that should be looked into, IMO,
if we can get enough volunteers who use other platforms to help out.
> However, to the extent that certain other architectures may
> need a boot specification and do not have one already, a
> variation of this specification, stripped of the x86-specific
> details, could be adopted for them as well.
The cleanest solution I could think of would be to not "strip" the
specification of x86-specifics, but instead rewrite it in a more
platform-independant way. Thus, a kernel would not have to be
rewritten to get ported across different platforms (well, at least not
in this specific aspect).
> I don't know if we can make the specification (mostly) independent
> of x86, since I don't know other architectures very much. Clearly,
> the Multiboot information structure contains some x86-specific
> members.
First of all, we should look into how different platforms work, so
that we'll know what needs to be changed.
Are anybody on this list using another platform as their main system,
perhaps?
