i know you probably can't answer, but.... where is the ninja group? xD On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Thomas Faber <thomas.fa...@reactos.org> wrote:
> Now the only problem is that neither our APIC nor MP HAL actually > work... > > > > On 2017-12-12 18:31, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote: > >> I have to agree that reducing it to 2 HALs (one ACPI with multiprocessor >> and such, that maybe is also used for single-cpu systems with ACPI), and a >> legacy one for systems unable to handle ACPI+MP, sounds like a great idea. >> >> On 12 December 2017 at 18:13, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo < >> elh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do! >>> >>> El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" <ion...@videotron.ca> escribió: >>> >>> I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with >>>> runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present). >>>> >>>> If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then >>>> we >>>> can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP. >>>> >>>> Hence there would only be 2 HALs. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Alex Ionescu >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <co...@reactos.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically >>>>> put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains >>>>> in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB >>>>> vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up >>>>> this >>>>> difference? >>>>> Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal, it's because they now >>>>>> >>>>> support basically only one "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI >>>>> multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of >>>>> cons. >>>>> >>>>> That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all >>>>> (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at >>>>> boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people >>>>> out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs. >>>>> >>>>> But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86 >>>>> computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different >>>>> systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What >>>>> would be the point? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Besides this, I've a question about your observation that in the APIC >>>>>> >>>>> hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of >>>>> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs / >>>>> HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are >>>>> completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for >>>>> which the >>>>> standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used? >>>>> >>>>> Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC >>>>> system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a >>>>> diff tool to see for yourself. >>>>> >>>>> The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers, >>>>> Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a >>>>> traditional >>>>> one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because >>>>> the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency. >>>>> The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while >>>>> the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually we should, because the detection might not work (of course in >>>>>> >>>>> our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard", it's simple, but think >>>>> about >>>>> other platforms where there can be subtle differences) >>>>> >>>>> Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to >>>>> support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose >>>>> a >>>>> different HAL at setup. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And normally it's not the setup that decides about the HAL, but the >>>>>> >>>>> bootloader. >>>>> >>>>> That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the >>>>> registry depending on the HAL. >>>>> If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after >>>>> installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have >>>>> one >>>>> HAL that encompasses both. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Colin >>>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
