[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