"Richard A. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12 Jul 2002 12:42:02 -0600, Eric W Biederman wrote: > > > Eric Seppanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Am I missing something, or shouldn't it be fairly straightforward to push > > > the image out to 128k or 256k, fixing up the boot vector and other > > > addresses to match? > > > > The limiting factor is the transition from real to protected mode. As > > soon as you are in protected mode, and have enabled full decode of > > the ROM it should be straight forward to do a lot more. > > I thought LinuxBIOS went to protected mode right out of the gate at > least thats what I thought entry32.inc says it does..
It does. It is just that entry16.inc is located at the opposite end of the LinuxBIOS image from reset16.inc. And that 16bit jump must cover the whole distane. It isn't insolvable. Or even terrifically hard to fix. But it must be fixed to have LinuxBIOS > 64K. Until I can see a justification keeping LinuxBIOS into 64K, sounds reasonable. And we can put a bootloader in the rest of the ROM chip, that has the sophistiacted user interaction features. Personally I'd like to shrink LinuxBIOS down even further than 64K but we will see where that goes. But given all of the troubles I have had with the kernel being too big I don't even want to consider totally ignoring the size issue. Eric
