Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber >> wrote: >> > On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: >>

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber > wrote: > > On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: > >> > >> For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_generic as >

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: >> >> For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_generic as the >> BSP? > > > I would drop the _generic. I don't think there will be a non-generic

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 15:20, Amaan Cheval wrote: For now, do we all agree to x86_64 as the arch, and x86_64_generic as the BSP? I would drop the _generic. I don't think there will be a non-generic BSP on this architecture. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 14/05/18 14:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber >> > > wrote: >> >>

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 14:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber >

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:12 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber > > > > wrote: > > > > On

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 14:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like >

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mon, May 14, 2018, 7:07 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like > > "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv target is > > structured? > > In case you

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 14/05/18 13:14, Amaan Cheval wrote: Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv target is structured? In case you want to name the new architecture "amd64", then the tool chain should be renamed as well, currently we have

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Regarding naming, how about we settle on something like "bsps/amd64/amd64_generic", borrowing from how the riscv target is structured? On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Chris Johns wrote: > On 05/05/2018 04:07, Amaan Cheval wrote: >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM Chris Johns

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 05/05/2018 04:07, Amaan Cheval wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM Chris Johns wrote: > >> On 03/05/2018 17:09, Amaan Cheval wrote: >>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:56 AM Chris Johns wrote: >>> On 01/05/2018 23:09, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Quick

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM Chris Johns wrote: > On 03/05/2018 17:09, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:56 AM Chris Johns wrote: > > > >> On 01/05/2018 23:09, Amaan Cheval wrote: > >>> Quick update: My x86_64 stub port compiles and can be

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:56 AM Chris Johns wrote: > On 01/05/2018 23:09, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > Quick update: My x86_64 stub port compiles and can be linked to all default > > tests now! _dance_ > > > > I've pushed the stub port for the x86_64 to my fork on Github; the commits

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 01/05/2018 23:09, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Quick update: My x86_64 stub port compiles and can be linked to all default > tests now! _dance_ > > I've pushed the stub port for the x86_64 to my fork on Github; the commits > are horribly messy (I did most of the work aiming for the stub to be one >

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Quick update: My x86_64 stub port compiles and can be linked to all default tests now! _dance_ I've pushed the stub port for the x86_64 to my fork on Github; the commits are horribly messy (I did most of the work aiming for the stub to be one commit, then later I realized several commits would

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

That definitely makes sense, yes. I'll look into the parts we need for ACPI and how we can match them up to ACPICA. I've added it to my proposal as a reminder / roadmap item of sorts for something to evaluate in during phase 1, since I believe the essential bits of ACPI will be involved during

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I did have a brief look since it's mentioned in the original ticket, but I've left it in the bonus features since from what I understand, a lot of the ACPI features to be implemented are not really essential. It should definitely be a resource to consider for the

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

I hate to pile on late but following the link to osdev.org in an earlier message led me to Google for something like Intel's reference implementation. https://github.com/acpica This os_specific directory has adapters for Linux, BSD, and Windows. I don't think there are that many methods in the

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Status update time! # Completed: [x] Get my QEMU environment setup - Documented on the RTEMS wiki[1] [x] Read more of RTEMS' no_cpu code, and the BSP porting guide - Read most of the guide - things have been in flux with the refactorings, but I think most of it makes sense, especially

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Brilliant, I think that resolves it all. Let me know if you have any other questions I may have missed or anything is unclear, though! My next steps are: - Get my QEMU environment setup with OVMF and document it on the wiki - Continue to read Intel's manual on system programming (volume 3) -

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 26/03/2018 14:49, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for your comments on the document, by the way. Regarding the > following comment: > >> We should support multiboot as well for legacy X86 BIOSes. There are > headers about that can do this. > > This is a great point - this way legacy

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Hi! Thanks for your comments on the document, by the way. Regarding the following comment: > We should support multiboot as well for legacy X86 BIOSes. There are headers about that can do this. This is a great point - this way legacy BIOSes only need something like GRUB (or a bootloader

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 20/03/2018 18:10, Amaan Cheval wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM Chris Johns wrote: >> On 20/03/2018 16:21, Amaan Cheval wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:23 AM Chris Johns wrote: On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: >>> (Assuming that

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM Chris Johns wrote: > On 20/03/2018 16:21, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:23 AM Chris Johns wrote: > > > >> On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: > >>> Thanks for checking the tool status! > >>> > >>> TLS

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 20/03/2018 16:21, Amaan Cheval wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:23 AM Chris Johns wrote: > >> On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: >>> Thanks for checking the tool status! >>> >>> TLS support for the tool seems okay to me as well - I see the TLS > program header >>>

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:23 AM Chris Johns wrote: > On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > Thanks for checking the tool status! > > > > TLS support for the tool seems okay to me as well - I see the TLS program header > > and the "T" flag for the ".tbss" section header,

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On 19/03/2018 18:36, Amaan Cheval wrote: > Thanks for checking the tool status! > > TLS support for the tool seems okay to me as well - I see the TLS program > header > and the "T" flag for the ".tbss" section header, as you'd expect in the ELF. I > haven't looked into the run-time support for

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

Thanks for checking the tool status! TLS support for the tool seems okay to me as well - I see the TLS program header and the "T" flag for the ".tbss" section header, as you'd expect in the ELF. I haven't looked into the run-time support for TLS in RTEMS yet - is there something I need to dig

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Mar 18, 2018 5:37 AM, "Gedare Bloom" wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Amaan Cheval >>

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Amaan Cheval >> wrote: >> > First off, thank you so much for the prompt and detailed

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Amaan Cheval > wrote: > > First off, thank you so much for the prompt and detailed response! I > really > > appreciate the help! > > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Amaan Cheval wrote: > First off, thank you so much for the prompt and detailed response! I really > appreciate the help! > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:46 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:24 AM, Amaan

Re: x86_64 port and BSP (GSoC 2018)

First off, thank you so much for the prompt and detailed response! I really appreciate the help! On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:46 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:24 AM, Amaan Cheval wrote: > > Hey everyone! > > > > Here's a link to a