Hi sir_richard and welcome back!
Just to make sure you know, it seems this commit introduces a regression, ros hangs while loading ndis.sys, see testbot logs:
http://build.reactos.org/builders/Windows_AMD64_1%20VBox-Test/builds/1342/s…
I've filed http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6292
Could you please take a look?
Thanks.
> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 20:48:34 +0000
> To: ros-diffs(a)reactos.org
> From: sir_richard(a)svn.reactos.org
> Subject: [ros-diffs] [sir_richard] 52098: [FREELDR]: Some ARM architectures do not necessarily have CS0_BASE at 0x00000000, for example, most Ti OMAP Platforms have DDR at 0x80000000. The current FreeLDR algorithms wou...
>
> Author: sir_richard
> Date: Sun Jun 5 20:48:34 2011
> New Revision: 52098
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=52098&view=rev
> Log:
> [FREELDR]: Some ARM architectures do not necessarily have CS0_BASE at 0x00000000, for example, most Ti OMAP Platforms have DDR at 0x80000000. The current FreeLDR algorithms would build FreeLDR "page entries" for every page from 0 to 0x7FFF0000 and mark it as unusable, then build the actual valid entries from 0x80000000 -> end of RAM, thus resulting in large memory consumption (and in the bloat of the PFN database later once NTOS loads) and boot time. Therefore, the algorithm is changed to start the PFN database at the lowest valid RAM page described by the Firemware descriptors, and entries therefore will be offset. This means a 128MB embedded system no longer appears to have 2048+128MB of RAM worth of PFN entries.
> NOTE: Windows does not do this, opting instead to force manufacturers/use pull-up resistors/reconfigure the ARM Bus to map RAM at 0x00000000. For wider portability, I believe it makes more sense to simply do this "trick" in the boot loader.
>
> Modified:
> trunk/reactos/boot/freeldr/freeldr/arcemul/mm.c
> trunk/reactos/boot/freeldr/freeldr/mm/meminit.c
>
Hi,
I'd like to change the Vtbl based architecture of freeldr into a normal
function call system.
Currently we have stuff like
#define MachHwDetect() MachVtbl.HwDetect()
MachVtbl.HwDetect = PcHwDetect;
This is IHO simply useless, since these functions don't change. I
suggest simply renaming PcHwDetect to MachHwDetect and do that will all
of those and get rid of the MachVtbl.
Any objections?
Regards,
Timo
gedmurphy(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> +// WIDL temp hack : [...]
Even though we all like to see a full MSVC build in the future, does
this really justify such an even bigger hack on top of the existing
ones? Would a proper fix really require that much more time?
If we don't want to end up in a new mess, this pretty much forces
someone to fix it in the coming days or the hack/commit will be
forgotten again. I'm certain about this, because nobody on #reactos-dev
really knew the reason behind the older __ROS_LONG64__ hack either.
Alternatively, you could open a detailed bug report about this issue and
assign some CMake people to it. But in any case, such hacks should be
tracked in our Bugzilla, in particular when more information about a
solution is known already.
- Colin
Hello all,
Edijus from #reactos has just tried ReactOS on his system, but the boot
process got stuck at "usbdriver.sys". When reading his notice, I was
wondering why we still include this ancient driver in every ReactOS build.
As far as I know ...
* it has never worked for us
* it is incomplete and not well-tested
* it has obvious code bugs (e.g. just look in ehci.c:3465 how it
enumerates more PCI devices and functions than possible,
consequently enumerating the first function twice due to bitshifts)
* better USB work by Johannes and Michael is progressing well
Although it might be useful as a testcase for the legacy HAL functions
(like HalAssignSlotResources), it should still be removed from the build
process for now.
If there are no objections, I'll do this change on the weekend.
- Colin
Hi,
While taking a short break from my GSOC work, I like to do some work on
freeldr.
Final goal is to make it work with MSVC, but first I'd like to do a
little cleanup, since its a bit messy.
First I'd like to know how the state of the old bootcode is and if we
still need it and whats left to do to get rid of it.
Then I'd suggest to remove the code that draws purple unicorns like it
was done for ARM (afaik, we don't use it anyway)
I'd also like to fix formatting (tabs -> spaces)
Any remarks, objections, wishes, doubts?
Regards,
Timo