Off by eight.

[Eric W. Biederman]

Stefan Reinauer <stepan at suse.de> writes:

> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at lnxi.com> [031119 03:23]:
> > Possibly a better term would be failsafe image.
> > 
> > What happens is that if everything looks good the fallback image
> > hands control to the normal one.  Otherwise it keeps control.
>  
> Note: IIRC, the "normal" image is called with protected mode already
> running, so it needs a different startup code (entry32.s instead of
> entry16.s?) 

Yes.  

> Also, the failsafe image does not do cmos option handling afair?

Correct.  That is so the failsafe image will do a known thing.

Right now with etherboot I have been able to keep the two
fairly symmetrical.  But it is my intention to start sticking
a kernel in the flash now that 512KiB byte flash chips and
above are getting common.  Etherboot was to a large extent
about getting something small enough that it could always
be used.  Once I start sticking a kernel in flash the normal
image should start picking up some capabilities not available
otherwise.

Right now the big benefit of having the two images is that
once you have fallback image working, you can continue development
without the need to even remove ROM chips.

Eric