Yea the alpha-system repository. Although it could be called something else. At one point we talked about having a system directory in m5 that contained alpha/sparc/... code. That is probably a good bet.
Ali On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Gabe Black wrote: > We actually have an implementation for Alpha's equivalent, right? The > console binary? Do we have that in a separate repository? Would we do > that for our BIOS of whichever flavor? > > Gabe > > nathan binkert wrote: >> My guess is that people want to run Linux, OpenSolaris, and maybe >> someday windows. I think that OpenSolaris can probably do EFI. >> Also, >> the bios emulation is a software thing that you can probably load >> as a >> loader and runs on top of EFI, so maybe we can use that if it >> matters. >> >> I guess this is a vote in favor of EFI if it is indeed easier to >> implement. >> >> Nate >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> According to Wikipedia, the following started supporting EFI at >>> some point: >>> >>> Linux with elilo >>> HP-UX on IA-64 >>> OpenVMS >>> OSX >>> Windows 2000 on Itanium >>> Windows Server 2003 for IA-64 >>> Windows XP 64-bit Edition >>> Windows blah blah. >>> >>> EFI is the only supported mechanism to boot OSX, I believe, and >>> BIOS is the only >>> supported mechanism to boot basically anything not in the list >>> above. The list >>> fortunately has most important OSes, but that would include DOS >>> for example. >>> >>> Basically, OSX has switched completely because they control the >>> whole hardware >>> stack. I think everyone else is switching too, but because people >>> apparently >>> still want to run windows 95 on their 16 way super servers they're >>> taking >>> longer. >>> >>> Gabe >>> >>> Quoting nathan binkert <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>>> I'd say whichever is easier. What guests are in each camp? >>>> >>>> Nate >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't plan on doing any work on this in the near future, but >>>>> what are >>>>> >>>> people's >>>> >>>>> opinions about implementing an EFI BIOS for m5 rather than a >>>>> traditional >>>>> >>>> BIOS? I >>>> >>>>> think EFI would be easier to implement and work with and easier >>>>> to get >>>>> documentation and support tools for, but a traditional BIOS would >>>>> >>>> potentially >>>> >>>>> be compatible with more guests. EFI supports a compatibility >>>>> layer, but at >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>>> point we'd be approximating implementing both, I think. That may >>>>> be ok >>>>> >>>> because I >>>> >>>>> think most BIOS services are ignored by most modern guests, with >>>>> the fairly >>>>> minor exception of a boot loader. >>>>> >>>>> Gabe >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> m5-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> m5-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
