[coreboot] why is firmware 32 bit as opposed to 64 bit
The Gluglug
info at gluglug.org.uk
Sun Aug 10 23:48:18 CEST 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What about 32-bit-only machines, or people that want to use a 32-bit OS?
On 10/08/14 22:37, ron minnich wrote:
> One of the reasons I"m working to implement paging for 32-bit mode
> is for our eventual change to 64-bit mode for coreboot. It's gone
> on the back burner for a bit as I'm doing a few other coreboot
> things first.
>
> I'd love to have the help, if you have time.
>
> ron
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
> Serbinenko <phcoder at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10.08.2014 21:06, John de la Garza wrote:
>>> I understand that the calling functions in 32 bit C uses the
>>> stack and this is why coreboot needs to use cache as RAM.
>>> Doesn't 64 bit C use registers to pass arguments to functions?
>>> If this is the case why not run in 64 bit mode?
>>>
>>> Also, even if cache as RAM is used and a stack is available,
>>> why not just build a 64 bit binary? What are the advantages
>>> to using a 32 bit binary?
>>>
>>>
>> long mode (64-bit) needs paging table in RAM. So no 64-bit for
>> preram binary. For rest it's theoretically possible but it's too
>> much hassle for no benefit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
>> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT5+iiAAoJEP9Ft0z50c+U2CsH/i5aWRH4VB4Kwa9k9P4Dl1sf
NhnHlg+YBmr82oRKpCR2Dtq78J0JQKOZbc5rfy0IaROxdX6Fkr4CcTxmyqWOLEhW
8RFx03NLqjOgfyVZx8JBz21RfFOJt3YVdbGtMfrRlacucUrL09JD680iwB65Zeqy
zooNe2RddsXUvTHflR13MJQoxTUCESlL7XSkNAnzjSBNkwcHisgI8oOlZBvxbzD0
WLul+mvCD15IvyeJuBOSIld1UWdRWMGqK0nUqGdaPMKqeRdwvLYPzpmEbd81YXAr
3cUXnC2sWW9h7xGv1N+IKvMjrjXwaD0czPCmZ/7wAvVlhEAzM3rOabmuvukgOuk=
=l8NY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the coreboot
mailing list