* GRUB2 and Multiboot?
@ 2008-04-11 19:55 Julian Salazar
2008-04-13 18:44 ` Robert Millan
2008-04-14 2:13 ` Pavel Roskin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Julian Salazar @ 2008-04-11 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: grub-devel
Hello,
I've got some questions about GRUB2 relating to the Multiboot Draft:
It seems like GRUB2 passes the start tag with a key of 1, bootloader name
with a key of 2, etc.
But the Multiboot draft says that the start tag has a key of 0, bootloader
name has a key of 1, etc.
Which one is right? One or the other has to be changed...
Suggestions:
I think that the multiboot tags should be explicitly (in the multiboot spec)
passed in order (i.e. that a tag with a key of 5 should always go before one
with a key of 7) Maybe a bootloader should give an x86-64 kernel the option
to either boot it into 32 or 64 bit mode? Or is that asking for too much?
Also, I'm really interested in the GRUB2 project, and I've noticed a
staggering lack of documentation for it. I'd be perfectly willing to help
write a manual of some kind for GRUB2, so how could I go about doing that?
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Thanks,
Julian S.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GRUB2 and Multiboot?
2008-04-11 19:55 GRUB2 and Multiboot? Julian Salazar
@ 2008-04-13 18:44 ` Robert Millan
2008-04-14 2:13 ` Pavel Roskin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert Millan @ 2008-04-13 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:55:57PM -0600, Julian Salazar wrote:
>
> Also, I'm really interested in the GRUB2 project, and I've noticed a
> staggering lack of documentation for it. I'd be perfectly willing to help
> write a manual of some kind for GRUB2, so how could I go about doing that?
Sorry that I can't answer about your multiboot question, hopefuly someone else
can.
About the manual, we have the skeleton of it in CVS, but it's not being
installed by the makefiles because it needs a lot of cleanup. There was
someone else who planned to work on it, IIRC, but if you can help too that's
welcome of course.
The most significant issue right now is removing or updating all parts that
are specific to GRUB Legacy.
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GRUB2 and Multiboot?
2008-04-11 19:55 GRUB2 and Multiboot? Julian Salazar
2008-04-13 18:44 ` Robert Millan
@ 2008-04-14 2:13 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-04-14 2:52 ` Julian Salazar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Roskin @ 2008-04-14 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:55 -0600, Julian Salazar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've got some questions about GRUB2 relating to the Multiboot Draft:
>
> It seems like GRUB2 passes the start tag with a key of 1, bootloader name
> with a key of 2, etc.
> But the Multiboot draft says that the start tag has a key of 0, bootloader
> name has a key of 1, etc.
> Which one is right? One or the other has to be changed...
You may get a better answer if you quote the specification (and where
you found it) and the piece of code that appears wrong to you.
I looked into multiboot.texi in GRUB 1 CVS, and I don't see the word
"tag" there.
> Suggestions:
> I think that the multiboot tags should be explicitly (in the multiboot spec)
> passed in order (i.e. that a tag with a key of 5 should always go before one
> with a key of 7) Maybe a bootloader should give an x86-64 kernel the option
> to either boot it into 32 or 64 bit mode? Or is that asking for too much?
I don't think having a dual-mode kernel would be a good idea. Either it
would be two kernels glued together, or it would be essentially a 32-bit
kernel with option 64-bit extensions - hardly a good idea for a kernel.
And in the later case, it would be better to use a parameter, like
"enable-64bit".
Or maybe you mean that the kernel should tell the bootloader whether the
control should be passed to it in the 64-bit mode?
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: GRUB2 and Multiboot?
2008-04-14 2:13 ` Pavel Roskin
@ 2008-04-14 2:52 ` Julian Salazar
2008-04-14 3:16 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-04-25 13:25 ` Yoshinori K. Okuji
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Julian Salazar @ 2008-04-14 2:52 UTC (permalink / raw
To: 'The development of GRUB 2'
Sorry if I wasn't more specific, but I was talking about the multiboot draft
at http://grub.enbug.org/MultibootDraft, specifically the Multiboot
Information Format.
> Or maybe you mean that the kernel should tell the bootloader whether the
> control should be passed to it in the 64-bit mode?
Exactly what I mean - maybe there should a flag of some kind, or a
parameter...
-----Original Message-----
From: grub-devel-bounces+julian.salazar=shaw.ca@gnu.org
[mailto:grub-devel-bounces+julian.salazar=shaw.ca@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Pavel Roskin
Sent: April-13-08 8:14 PM
To: The development of GRUB 2
Subject: Re: GRUB2 and Multiboot?
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:55 -0600, Julian Salazar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've got some questions about GRUB2 relating to the Multiboot Draft:
>
> It seems like GRUB2 passes the start tag with a key of 1, bootloader name
> with a key of 2, etc.
> But the Multiboot draft says that the start tag has a key of 0, bootloader
> name has a key of 1, etc.
> Which one is right? One or the other has to be changed...
You may get a better answer if you quote the specification (and where
you found it) and the piece of code that appears wrong to you.
I looked into multiboot.texi in GRUB 1 CVS, and I don't see the word
"tag" there.
> Suggestions:
> I think that the multiboot tags should be explicitly (in the multiboot
spec)
> passed in order (i.e. that a tag with a key of 5 should always go before
one
> with a key of 7) Maybe a bootloader should give an x86-64 kernel the
option
> to either boot it into 32 or 64 bit mode? Or is that asking for too much?
I don't think having a dual-mode kernel would be a good idea. Either it
would be two kernels glued together, or it would be essentially a 32-bit
kernel with option 64-bit extensions - hardly a good idea for a kernel.
And in the later case, it would be better to use a parameter, like
"enable-64bit".
Or maybe you mean that the kernel should tell the bootloader whether the
control should be passed to it in the 64-bit mode?
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: GRUB2 and Multiboot?
2008-04-14 2:52 ` Julian Salazar
@ 2008-04-14 3:16 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-04-25 13:25 ` Yoshinori K. Okuji
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Roskin @ 2008-04-14 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 20:52 -0600, Julian Salazar wrote:
> Sorry if I wasn't more specific, but I was talking about the multiboot draft
> at http://grub.enbug.org/MultibootDraft, specifically the Multiboot
> Information Format.
Oh, I see.
It seems to me that the code implements a more thought out standard. 0
is MULTIBOOT2_TAG_RESERVED1 there.
The code was committed by Jerone Young, but I don't know who maintains
the specification. It's quite possible that the code has never been
tested on a real kernel.
> > Or maybe you mean that the kernel should tell the bootloader whether the
> > control should be passed to it in the 64-bit mode?
>
> Exactly what I mean - maybe there should a flag of some kind, or a
> parameter...
I see. Anyway, I don't feel qualified about discussing the proposed
standard.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GRUB2 and Multiboot?
2008-04-14 2:52 ` Julian Salazar
2008-04-14 3:16 ` Pavel Roskin
@ 2008-04-25 13:25 ` Yoshinori K. Okuji
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yoshinori K. Okuji @ 2008-04-25 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Monday 14 April 2008 04:52, Julian Salazar wrote:
> Sorry if I wasn't more specific, but I was talking about the multiboot
> draft at http://grub.enbug.org/MultibootDraft, specifically the Multiboot
> Information Format.
>
> > Or maybe you mean that the kernel should tell the bootloader whether the
> > control should be passed to it in the 64-bit mode?
>
> Exactly what I mean - maybe there should a flag of some kind, or a
> parameter...
The Multiboot Specification 2 will always pass control in 32-bit mode on
x86_64. I think this was the conclusion of a past discussion...
Okuji
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-04-25 13:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-04-11 19:55 GRUB2 and Multiboot? Julian Salazar
2008-04-13 18:44 ` Robert Millan
2008-04-14 2:13 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-04-14 2:52 ` Julian Salazar
2008-04-14 3:16 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-04-25 13:25 ` Yoshinori K. Okuji
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.