Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

[Alex Ionescu]

I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).

If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.

Hence there would only be 2 HALs.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:

>   Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès
> BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
>  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
>  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
>  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
>  difference?
>  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
>
>
> >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > it's because they now 
>  support basically only one
> "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
>  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>
>  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
>  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
>  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
>  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
>
>  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
>  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
>  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
>  would be the point?
>
>
> >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > observation that in the APIC 
>  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> of
>  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
>  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
>  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
>  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>
>  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
>  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
>  diff tool to see for yourself.
>
>  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
>  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
>  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
>  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
>  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
>  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
>
>
> >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > not work (of course in 
>  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> "Standard", it's simple, but think about
>  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>
>  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
>  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
>  different HAL at setup.
>
>
> >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > about the HAL, but the 
>  bootloader.
>
>  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
>  registry depending on the HAL.
>  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
>  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
>  HAL that encompasses both.
>
>
>  - Colin
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!

El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> escribió:

>   I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL
> for APIC, ACPI with
>  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
>
>  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
>  can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
>
>  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
>
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>
>  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>
> >   Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès
> > BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> >  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> >  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> >  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> >  difference?
> >  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> >
> >
> > >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > > it's because they now 
> >  support basically only one
> > "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> >  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
> >
> >  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> >  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> >  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> >  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> >
> >  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> >  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> >  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> >  would be the point?
> >
> >
> > >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > > observation that in the APIC 
> >  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> > of
> >  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> >  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> >  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> >  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> >
> >  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> >  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> >  diff tool to see for yourself.
> >
> >  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> >  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> >  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> >  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> >  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> >  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> >
> >
> > >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > > not work (of course in 
> >  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> > "Standard", it's simple, but think about
> >  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> >
> >  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> >  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> >  different HAL at setup.
> >
> >
> > >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > > about the HAL, but the 
> >  bootloader.
> >
> >  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> >  registry depending on the HAL.
> >  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> >  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> >  HAL that encompasses both.
> >
> >
> >  - Colin
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

I have to agree that reducing it to 2 HALs (one ACPI with multiprocessor
and such, that maybe is also used for single-cpu systems with ACPI), and a
legacy one for systems unable to handle ACPI+MP, sounds like a great idea.

On 12 December 2017 at 18:13, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <
elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>   Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
>
>  El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt; escribió:
>
> >   I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single
> > HAL for APIC, ACPI with
> >  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
> >
> >  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
> >  can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
> >
> >  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >  Alex Ionescu
> >
> >  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> > >   Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès
> > > BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> > >  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> > >  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> > >  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> > >  difference?
> > >  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > > > it's because they now 
> > >  support basically only one
> > > "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> > >  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
> > >
> > >  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> > >  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> > >  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> > >  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> > >
> > >  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> > >  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> > >  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> > >  would be the point?
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > > > observation that in the APIC 
> > >  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> > > of
> > >  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> > >  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> > >  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> > >  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> > >
> > >  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> > >  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> > >  diff tool to see for yourself.
> > >
> > >  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> > >  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> > >  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> > >  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> > >  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> > >  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > > > not work (of course in 
> > >  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> > > "Standard", it's simple, but think about
> > >  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> > >
> > >  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> > >  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> > >  different HAL at setup.
> > >
> > >
> > > >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > > > about the HAL, but the 
> > >  bootloader.
> > >
> > >  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> > >  registry depending on the HAL.
> > >  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> > >  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> > >  HAL that encompasses both.
> > >
> > >
> > >  - Colin
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >  
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Thomas Faber]

Now the only problem is that neither our APIC nor MP HAL actually
work...


On 2017-12-12 18:31, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
>   I have to agree that reducing it to 2 HALs (one ACPI
> with multiprocessor
>  and such, that maybe is also used for single-cpu systems with ACPI), and a
>  legacy one for systems unable to handle ACPI+MP, sounds like a great idea.
>  
>  On 12 December 2017 at 18:13, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <
>  elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
> > Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
> >
> > El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt;
> escribió:
> >
> >> I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
> >> runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
> >>
> >> If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
> >> can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
> >>
> >> Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Alex Ionescu
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> >>> put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> >>> in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> >>> vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> >>> difference?
> >>> Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal, it's because they
> now
> >>> support basically only one "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> >>> multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> >>> (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> >>> boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> >>> out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> >>>
> >>> But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> >>> computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> >>> systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> >>> would be the point?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Besides this, I've a question about your observation that in the
> APIC
> >>> hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> >>> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> >>> HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> >>> completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> >>> standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> >>> system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> >>> diff tool to see for yourself.
> >>>
> >>> The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> >>> Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> >>> one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> >>> the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> >>> The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> >>> the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Actually we should, because the detection might not work (of course in
> >>> our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard", it's
> simple, but think about
> >>> other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> >>>
> >>> Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> >>> support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> >>> different HAL at setup.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> And normally it's not the setup that decides about the HAL, but the
> >>> bootloader.
> >>>
> >>> That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> >>> registry depending on the HAL.
> >>> If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> >>> installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> >>> HAL that encompasses both.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Colin

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

i know you probably  can't answer, but....
where is the ninja group? xD

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Thomas Faber <thomas.faber(a)reactos.org>
wrote:

>   Now the only problem is that neither our APIC nor MP
> HAL actually
>  work...
>
>
>
>  On 2017-12-12 18:31, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
>
> >   I have to agree that reducing it to 2 HALs (one
> > ACPI with multiprocessor
> >  and such, that maybe is also used for single-cpu systems with ACPI), and a
> >  legacy one for systems unable to handle ACPI+MP, sounds like a great idea.
> >
> >  On 12 December 2017 at 18:13, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <
> >  elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> >  Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
> > >
> > > El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt;
> > escribió:
> > >
> > > I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
> > >> runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
> > >>
> > >> If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then
> > >> we
> > >> can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
> > >>
> > >> Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Alex Ionescu
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> > >>> put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> > >>> in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> > >>> vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up
> > >>> this
> > >>> difference?
> > >>> Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal, it's because they now
> > >>>>
> > >>> support basically only one "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> > >>> multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of
> > >>> cons.
> > >>>
> > >>> That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> > >>> (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> > >>> boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> > >>> out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> > >>>
> > >>> But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> > >>> computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> > >>> systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> > >>> would be the point?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Besides this, I've a question about your observation that in the APIC
> > >>>>
> > >>> hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> > >>> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> > >>> HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> > >>> completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for
> > >>> which the
> > >>> standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> > >>>
> > >>> Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> > >>> system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> > >>> diff tool to see for yourself.
> > >>>
> > >>> The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> > >>> Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a
> > >>> traditional
> > >>> one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> > >>> the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> > >>> The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> > >>> the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Actually we should, because the detection might not work (of course in
> > >>>>
> > >>> our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard", it's
> > simple, but think
> > >>> about
> > >>> other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> > >>>
> > >>> Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> > >>> support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose
> > >>> a
> > >>> different HAL at setup.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> And normally it's not the setup that decides about the HAL, but the
> > >>>>
> > >>> bootloader.
> > >>>
> > >>> That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> > >>> registry depending on the HAL.
> > >>> If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> > >>> installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have
> > >>> one
> > >>> HAL that encompasses both.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> - Colin
> > >>>
> > >> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Riccardo Paolo Bestetti]

My bi-annual IT guy peak:

Is there a real need to?
I think not.

B.R.
Riccardo P. Bestetti

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Javier Agustìn Fernàndez
Arroyo
Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!

El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with runtime support
for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).

If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we can also
maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.

Hence there would only be 2 HALs.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
difference?
Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids


>   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> it's because they now support basically only one "architecture"/platform,
> namely, ACPI multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>  
That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
(Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.

But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
would be the point?


>   Besides this, I've a question about your
> observation that in the APIC hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs / HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't
> it precisely because these stuff are completely different from the standard PICs used in
> platforms for which the standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>  
Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
diff tool to see for yourself.

The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.


>   Actually we should, because the detection might not
> work (of course in our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard",
> it's simple, but think about other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>  
Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
different HAL at setup.


>   And normally it's not the setup that decides about
> the HAL, but the bootloader.
>  
That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
registry depending on the HAL.
If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
HAL that encompasses both.


- Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO]

To remember what the ReactOS project is about : it’s about recreating Windows in
open-source and trying not to do the same mistakes as the non-open-source counterpart,
i.e. having it work only on the newest of the newest computers.

 

And also, it’s not like if the HAL PIC x86 UP would suddently not work anymore: its
“maintenance” is very minimal (bug fixes).

 

Otherwise, Alex’ idea of two HALs sounds nice.

 

Regards,

Hermès

 

De : Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
Envoyé : mardi 12 décembre 2017 22:01
À : ReactOS Development List
Objet : Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

 

My bi-annual IT guy peak:

 

Is there a real need to?

I think not.

 

B.R.

Riccardo P. Bestetti

 

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Javier Agustìn Fernàndez
Arroyo
Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

 

Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!

 

El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> escribió:

I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with runtime support
for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).

 

If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we can also
maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.

 

Hence there would only be 2 HALs.




Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

 

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:

Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
difference?
Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids


>   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> it's because they now support basically only one "architecture"/platform,
> namely, ACPI multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
(Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.

But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
would be the point?


>   Besides this, I've a question about your
> observation that in the APIC hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs / HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't
> it precisely because these stuff are completely different from the standard PICs used in
> platforms for which the standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used? 
Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
diff tool to see for yourself.

The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.


>   Actually we should, because the detection might not
> work (of course in our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard",
> it's simple, but think about other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
different HAL at setup.


>   And normally it's not the setup that decides about
> the HAL, but the bootloader. 
That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
registry depending on the HAL.
If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
HAL that encompasses both.



- Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

 


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

I think yes, on the fact that duplicate code is already causing bugs. Now
wether we want to unify everything into one megaHAL, or compile multiple
HALs fom the same codebase, or merge into two medium-sized HALs, that's
what the discussion is meant to be about.

On 12 December 2017 at 22:00, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:

>   My bi-annual IT guy peak:
>
>
>
>  Is there a real need to?
>
>  I think not.
>
>
>
>  B.R.
>
>  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Javier
>  Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
>  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
>  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
>
>
>
>  Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
>
>
>
>  El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt; escribió:
>
>  I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
>  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
>
>
>
>  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
>  can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
>
>
>
>  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
>
>
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>
>
>
>  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
>
>  Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
>  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
>  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
>  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
>  difference?
>  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
>
>
> >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > it's because they now 
>  support basically only one
> "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
>  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>
>  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
>  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
>  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
>  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
>
>  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
>  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
>  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
>  would be the point?
>
>
> >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > observation that in the APIC 
>  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> of
>  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
>  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
>  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
>  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>
>  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
>  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
>  diff tool to see for yourself.
>
>  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
>  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
>  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
>  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
>  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
>  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
>
>
> >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > not work (of course in 
>  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> "Standard", it's simple, but think about
>  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>
>  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
>  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
>  different HAL at setup.
>
>
> >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > about the HAL, but the 
>  bootloader.
>
>  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
>  registry depending on the HAL.
>  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
>  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
>  HAL that encompasses both.
>
>
>
>  - Colin
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Riccardo Paolo Bestetti]

Hi David,

I was talking about supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain and simple waste
of resources. There may be legacy computers running legacy software around, but you can be
sure that no one is gonna redeploy these computer, especially with a different software
configuration (i.e. installing ReactOS instead of Windows [2000|XP|2003] on it). Of course
I leave the (very) technical discussion about how to implement HALs to you.

BR.
Riccardo P. Bestetti

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of David Quintana
(gigaherz)
Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2017 22:45
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

I think yes, on the fact that duplicate code is already causing bugs. Now wether we want
to unify everything into one megaHAL, or compile multiple HALs fom the same codebase, or
merge into two medium-sized HALs, that's what the discussion is meant to be about.

On 12 December 2017 at 22:00, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
My bi-annual IT guy peak:

Is there a real need to?
I think not.

B.R.
Riccardo P. Bestetti

From: Ros-dev
[mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
Of Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
To: ReactOS Development List
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!

El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with runtime support
for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).

If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we can also
maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.

Hence there would only be 2 HALs.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
difference?
Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids


>   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> it's because they now support basically only one "architecture"/platform,
> namely, ACPI multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>  
That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
(Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.

But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
would be the point?


>   Besides this, I've a question about your
> observation that in the APIC hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs / HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't
> it precisely because these stuff are completely different from the standard PICs used in
> platforms for which the standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>  
Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
diff tool to see for yourself.

The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.


>   Actually we should, because the detection might not
> work (of course in our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard",
> it's simple, but think about other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>  
Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
different HAL at setup.


>   And normally it's not the setup that decides about
> the HAL, but the bootloader.
>  
That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
registry depending on the HAL.
If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
HAL that encompasses both.


- Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

"supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain and simple waste of
resources."
I completely disagree.

Supporting very old hardware  means that it will consume very very fewer
resources in very new hardware, too.
But, speaking about the former, it would be wonderful to be able to run
Windows software in such hardware.

The question in this last case is, how HAL supports new CPU instructions?
but that`s an off-topic question

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:

>   Hi David,
>
>
>
>  I was talking about supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain
>  and simple waste of resources. There may be legacy computers running legacy
>  software around, but you can be sure that no one is gonna redeploy these
>  computer, especially with a different software configuration (i.e.
>  installing ReactOS instead of Windows [2000|XP|2003] on it). Of course I
>  leave the (very) technical discussion about how to implement HALs to you.
>
>
>
>  BR.
>
>  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
>  Quintana (gigaherz)
>  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 22:45
>
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
>  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
>
>
>
>  I think yes, on the fact that duplicate code is already causing bugs. Now
>  wether we want to unify everything into one megaHAL, or compile multiple
>  HALs fom the same codebase, or merge into two medium-sized HALs, that's
>  what the discussion is meant to be about.
>
>
>
>  On 12 December 2017 at 22:00, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
>  riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:
>
>  My bi-annual IT guy peak:
>
>
>
>  Is there a real need to?
>
>  I think not.
>
>
>
>  B.R.
>
>  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Javier
>  Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
>  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
>  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
>
>
>
>  Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
>
>
>
>  El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt; escribió:
>
>  I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
>  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
>
>
>
>  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
>  can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
>
>
>
>  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
>
>
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>
>
>
>  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
>
>  Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
>  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
>  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
>  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
>  difference?
>  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
>
>
> >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > it's because they now 
>  support basically only one
> "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
>  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>
>  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
>  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
>  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
>  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
>
>  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
>  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
>  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
>  would be the point?
>
>
> >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > observation that in the APIC 
>  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> of
>  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
>  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
>  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
>  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>
>  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
>  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
>  diff tool to see for yourself.
>
>  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
>  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
>  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
>  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
>  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
>  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
>
>
> >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > not work (of course in 
>  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> "Standard", it's simple, but think about
>  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>
>  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
>  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
>  different HAL at setup.
>
>
> >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > about the HAL, but the 
>  bootloader.
>
>  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
>  registry depending on the HAL.
>  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
>  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
>  HAL that encompasses both.
>
>
>
>  - Colin
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Magnus Johnsson]

(Outsider looking in, again. hello. Ignore me if needed)

It seems to me like you are discussing this from a pretty nebulous sense of
'why should we do this' and the same for 'we are scared of doing this'.
So, concrete question, what sort of issues are you likely to run in to? You
have had issues now with bugs that pop up only on some HAL's due to
duplication of code. What are the negative consequences of doing this? What
could potentially break? Why would really old hardware break, and can it be
mitigated? And, if shit hits the fan, how hard would it be to backtrack
again/make a dirty as hell hack at runtime?

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2017-12-13 12:49 GMT+01:00 Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo &lt;elhoir(a)gmail.com
>  : 
>   "supporting very old hardware, which I see as a
> plain and simple waste of
>  resources."
>  I completely disagree.
>
>  Supporting very old hardware  means that it will consume very very fewer
>  resources in very new hardware, too.
>  But, speaking about the former, it would be wonderful to be able to run
>  Windows software in such hardware.
>
>  The question in this last case is, how HAL supports new CPU instructions?
>  but that`s an off-topic question
>
>  On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
>  riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:
>
> >   Hi David,
> >
> >
> >
> >  I was talking about supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain
> >  and simple waste of resources. There may be legacy computers running legacy
> >  software around, but you can be sure that no one is gonna redeploy these
> >  computer, especially with a different software configuration (i.e.
> >  installing ReactOS instead of Windows [2000|XP|2003] on it). Of course I
> >  leave the (very) technical discussion about how to implement HALs to you.
> >
> >
> >
> >  BR.
> >
> >  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
> >
> >
> >
> >  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> >  Quintana (gigaherz)
> >  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 22:45
> >
> >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> >  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
> >
> >
> >
> >  I think yes, on the fact that duplicate code is already causing bugs. Now
> >  wether we want to unify everything into one megaHAL, or compile multiple
> >  HALs fom the same codebase, or merge into two medium-sized HALs, that's
> >  what the discussion is meant to be about.
> >
> >
> >
> >  On 12 December 2017 at 22:00, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
> >  riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:
> >
> >  My bi-annual IT guy peak:
> >
> >
> >
> >  Is there a real need to?
> >
> >  I think not.
> >
> >
> >
> >  B.R.
> >
> >  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
> >
> >
> >
> >  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Javier
> >  Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
> >  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
> >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> >  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
> >
> >
> >
> >  Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
> >
> >
> >
> >  El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt; escribió:
> >
> >  I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
> >  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
> >
> >
> >
> >  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
> >  can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
> >
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >  Alex Ionescu
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> >  Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> >  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> >  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> >  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> >  difference?
> >  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> >
> >
> > >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > > it's because they now 
> >  support basically only one
> > "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> >  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
> >
> >  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> >  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> >  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> >  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> >
> >  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> >  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> >  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> >  would be the point?
> >
> >
> > >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > > observation that in the APIC 
> >  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> > of
> >  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> >  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> >  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> >  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> >
> >  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> >  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> >  diff tool to see for yourself.
> >
> >  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> >  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> >  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> >  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> >  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> >  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> >
> >
> > >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > > not work (of course in 
> >  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> > "Standard", it's simple, but think about
> >  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> >
> >  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> >  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> >  different HAL at setup.
> >
> >
> > >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > > about the HAL, but the 
> >  bootloader.
> >
> >  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> >  registry depending on the HAL.
> >  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> >  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> >  HAL that encompasses both.
> >
> >
> >
> >  - Colin
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Magnus Johnsson]

(Oh, and, is anyone willing to actually do the work involved and take it
under their wing?)

2017-12-13 13:02 GMT+01:00 Magnus Johnsson <magnusjjj(a)gmail.com>om>:

>   (Outsider looking in, again. hello. Ignore me if
> needed)
>
>  It seems to me like you are discussing this from a pretty nebulous sense
>  of 'why should we do this' and the same for 'we are scared of doing
> this'.
>  So, concrete question, what sort of issues are you likely to run in to?
>  You have had issues now with bugs that pop up only on some HAL's due to
>  duplication of code. What are the negative consequences of doing this? What
>  could potentially break? Why would really old hardware break, and can it be
>  mitigated? And, if shit hits the fan, how hard would it be to backtrack
>  again/make a dirty as hell hack at runtime?
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
> Virus-free.
>  www.avast.com
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>  <#m_-3948499177932828522_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>  2017-12-13 12:49 GMT+01:00 Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <
>  elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt;gt;:
>
> >   "supporting very old hardware, which I see
> > as a plain and simple waste
> >  of resources."
> >  I completely disagree.
> >
> >  Supporting very old hardware  means that it will consume very very fewer
> >  resources in very new hardware, too.
> >  But, speaking about the former, it would be wonderful to be able to run
> >  Windows software in such hardware.
> >
> >  The question in this last case is, how HAL supports new CPU instructions?
> >  but that`s an off-topic question
> >
> >  On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
> >  riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:
> >
> > >   Hi David,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  I was talking about supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain
> > >  and simple waste of resources. There may be legacy computers running legacy
> > >  software around, but you can be sure that no one is gonna redeploy these
> > >  computer, especially with a different software configuration (i.e.
> > >  installing ReactOS instead of Windows [2000|XP|2003] on it). Of course I
> > >  leave the (very) technical discussion about how to implement HALs to you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  BR.
> > >
> > >  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *David
> > >  Quintana (gigaherz)
> > >  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 22:45
> > >
> > >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> > >  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  I think yes, on the fact that duplicate code is already causing bugs.
> > >  Now wether we want to unify everything into one megaHAL, or compile
> > >  multiple HALs fom the same codebase, or merge into two medium-sized HALs,
> > >  that's what the discussion is meant to be about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  On 12 December 2017 at 22:00, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
> > >  riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:
> > >
> > >  My bi-annual IT guy peak:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Is there a real need to?
> > >
> > >  I think not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  B.R.
> > >
> > >  *Riccardo P. Bestetti*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Javier
> > >  Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
> > >  *Sent:* martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
> > >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> > >  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu" &lt;ionucu(a)videotron.ca&gt; escribió:
> > >
> > >  I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
> > >  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then
> > >  we can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Best regards,
> > >  Alex Ionescu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck &lt;colin(a)reactos.org&gt; wrote:
> > >
> > >  Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> > >  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> > >  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> > >  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> > >  difference?
> > >  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > > > it's because they now 
> > >  support basically only one
> > > "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> > >  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
> > >
> > >  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> > >  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> > >  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> > >  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> > >
> > >  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> > >  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> > >  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> > >  would be the point?
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > > > observation that in the APIC 
> > >  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> > > of
> > >  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> > >  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> > >  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> > >  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> > >
> > >  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> > >  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> > >  diff tool to see for yourself.
> > >
> > >  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> > >  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> > >  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> > >  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> > >  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> > >  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > > > not work (of course in 
> > >  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> > > "Standard", it's simple, but think about
> > >  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> > >
> > >  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> > >  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> > >  different HAL at setup.
> > >
> > >
> > > >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > > > about the HAL, but the 
> > >  bootloader.
> > >
> > >  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> > >  registry depending on the HAL.
> > >  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> > >  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> > >  HAL that encompasses both.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  - Colin
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >  
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>

[Riccardo Paolo Bestetti]

Supporting old hardware does not mean it will consume fewer resources. The fact that
you’re carefully optimizing the code, because it has to run on old hardware, means that it
will consume fewer resources.
And nothing in particular stops you from doing that even without supporting old
hardware.

It would be wonderful indeed, but one has to draw the line somewhere. What I was proposing
is to draw the line in a useful place, i.e., in a place that would have ReactOS support
hardware that is actually of any interest for new setups.

I gave a variation of this argument when discussing what NT version(s) ReactOS should
target. Let me give a slightly updated variation today.

It seems to me that this project is terribly undermanned. Today, the codebase is missing
most of what makes an OS modern and useful, and at this pace, even if you target the most
modern Windows OS currently in existence, the gap is going to get bigger. Targeting legacy
systems is not going to do any good. Unless you only want to run on legacy systems, that
is.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that that is the case. How many systems have legacy
hardware *and* can’t be replaced with newer systems *and* are likely to break down (i.e.
non-redundant hardware or insufficient maintenance), *and* are not just getting a cloned
image of whatever was installed on there before in case they do break down? Because these
would be the only possible candidates for such a ReactOS. Other that 14 years old
tech-savvy kids trying to resuscitate their father’s old PC and Christian youth
organizations fixing old PCs for the local Community, but I doubt this is what any of you
think as your target.

one of the companies I work for, every year we make a list of the older computers, and we
change them. Every time this happens, I try to install the latest ReactOS and to run their
CRM software on there, with the hope that one day I will be able to experimentally run one
of these computers with ReactOS. The last two times I tried this, it was worse than the
year before. And yet, the discussion is whether to support legacy hardware. This is why I
said it is, plain and simple, a waste of resources. It is.
28 years ago GEOS 2.0 was released for the C128. 22 years ago Windows 95 was released for
“legacy hardware”. ReactOS is many years away from becoming usable. You do the math…

Thank you for the time you took to read this.

BR,
Riccardo P. Bestetti

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Javier Agustìn Fernàndez
Arroyo
Sent: mercoledì 13 dicembre 2017 12:49
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

"supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain and simple waste of
resources."
I completely disagree.
Supporting very old hardware  means that it will consume very very fewer resources in very
new hardware, too.
But, speaking about the former, it would be wonderful to be able to run Windows software
in such hardware.
The question in this last case is, how HAL supports new CPU instructions? but that`s an
off-topic question

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi David,

I was talking about supporting very old hardware, which I see as a plain and simple waste
of resources. There may be legacy computers running legacy software around, but you can be
sure that no one is gonna redeploy these computer, especially with a different software
configuration (i.e. installing ReactOS instead of Windows [2000|XP|2003] on it). Of course
I leave the (very) technical discussion about how to implement HALs to you.

BR.
Riccardo P. Bestetti

From: Ros-dev
[mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
Of David Quintana (gigaherz)
Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2017 22:45

To: ReactOS Development List
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

I think yes, on the fact that duplicate code is already causing bugs. Now wether we want
to unify everything into one megaHAL, or compile multiple HALs fom the same codebase, or
merge into two medium-sized HALs, that's what the discussion is meant to be about.

On 12 December 2017 at 22:00, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
My bi-annual IT guy peak:

Is there a real need to?
I think not.

B.R.
Riccardo P. Bestetti

From: Ros-dev
[mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
Of Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2017 18:13
To: ReactOS Development List
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs

Win8 does not support old hardware as ReactOS do!

El 12 dic. 2017 17:52, "Alex Ionescu"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with runtime support
for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).

If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we can also
maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.

Hence there would only be 2 HALs.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
difference?
Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids


>   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> it's because they now support basically only one "architecture"/platform,
> namely, ACPI multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>  
That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
(Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.

But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
would be the point?


>   Besides this, I've a question about your
> observation that in the APIC hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs / HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't
> it precisely because these stuff are completely different from the standard PICs used in
> platforms for which the standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>  
Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
diff tool to see for yourself.

The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.


>   Actually we should, because the detection might not
> work (of course in our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard",
> it's simple, but think about other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>  
Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
different HAL at setup.


>   And normally it's not the setup that decides about
> the HAL, but the bootloader.
>  
That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
registry depending on the HAL.
If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
HAL that encompasses both.


- Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Michael Fritscher]

Hi,

I think that at least merging most of the versions shouldn't be a big
problem.  We could go Win8's way. Is there a rough estimation, how much is
the distribution of common code, code for new HW only and code für old HW
only?

To be honest, I don't think that much space will be wasted in the
installation or during runtime if we merge all (generic) hals to one.

If I understand it correctly, even on modern HW we need most of the "old"
ways for initialization. The biggest waste should be the ACPI
infrastructure on very(!) old HW. And this is how many KB on RAM? 200KB?

Btw, ACPI went into the mass market ca. 1998. On these days, 32 MB RAM
were normal. ReactOS wouldn't even boot on these machines.

Best regards,
Michael Fritscher

[Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO]

That's why I'm extremely in favour of keeping the HAL x86 Standard PC
mono-processor separate from the other hals (I mean, as a separate dll).
But if you find inside some code that can be shared with the ACPI/APIC/whatever other hal,
then just share it! (maybe use some #ifdefs inside as long as it doesn't imply
recopying twice the file contents into the ifdef blocks).

Regards

>   -----Message d'origine-----
>  De : Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Michael
>  Fritscher
>  Envoyé : mercredi 13 décembre 2017 23:06
>  À : ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  Objet : Re: [ros-dev] Merging our x86 HALs
>  
>  Hi,
>  
>  I think that at least merging most of the versions shouldn't be a big problem.
>  We could go Win8's way. Is there a rough estimation, how much is the
>  distribution of common code, code for new HW only and code für old HW only?
>  
>  To be honest, I don't think that much space will be wasted in the installation or
>  during runtime if we merge all (generic) hals to one.
>  
>  If I understand it correctly, even on modern HW we need most of the "old"
>  ways for initialization. The biggest waste should be the ACPI infrastructure on
>  very(!) old HW. And this is how many KB on RAM? 200KB?
>  
>  Btw, ACPI went into the mass market ca. 1998. On these days, 32 MB RAM
>  were normal. ReactOS wouldn't even boot on these machines.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Michael Fritscher
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[James Tabor]

Two HALs for both old and new hardware is good.

I've tried XP on new hardware and it did not boot up at all.

ReactOS same or better.

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:

>   I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL
> for APIC, ACPI with
>  runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
>
>  If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
>  can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
>
>  Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
>
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>
>  On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>
> >   Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès
> > BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> >  put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> >  in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> >  vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> >  difference?
> >  Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
> >
> >
> > >   Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal,
> > > it's because they now 
> >  support basically only one
> > "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> >  multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
> >
> >  That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> >  (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> >  boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> >  out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
> >
> >  But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> >  computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> >  systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> >  would be the point?
> >
> >
> > >   Besides this, I've a question about your
> > > observation that in the APIC 
> >  hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation
> > of
> >  HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> >  HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> >  completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> >  standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
> >
> >  Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> >  system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> >  diff tool to see for yourself.
> >
> >  The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> >  Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> >  one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> >  the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> >  The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> >  the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
> >
> >
> > >   Actually we should, because the detection might
> > > not work (of course in 
> >  our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs.
> > "Standard", it's simple, but think about
> >  other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
> >
> >  Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> >  support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> >  different HAL at setup.
> >
> >
> > >   And normally it's not the setup that decides
> > > about the HAL, but the 
> >  bootloader.
> >
> >  That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> >  registry depending on the HAL.
> >  If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> >  installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> >  HAL that encompasses both.
> >
> >
> >  - Colin
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>