Ronald G Minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > do you think the etherboot guys would support a fixup of their code to > make it more portable?
Yes. There has been some suggestion of it, by other developers, and the abstraction layer needed is roughly the same abstraction layer needed to run at a different virtual address, which is needed to get etherboot out of the low 1MB of ram. All of which is on my wantodo list. So it might not be happening tommorrow, but it is definitely something they wouldn't have a problem with. Suggesting putting an unnecessarily large function in the core of etherboot and you will get complaints. But for most other stuff they are pretty agreeable. Eric
