Where is the f**** manual? PS/2 Keyboard driver.

[HoTT]

Thanks to the wiki, I've figured out how to drive a PS/2 keyboard. I even now what kind of microcontroller does (or used to) control it and got its data sheet. Cool. What I cannot find after an hour of search is, where the port numbers 0x60 and 0x64 come from. If there would be no osdev-wiki, how would I figure that out?

[Combuster]

I found this one google away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input/output_base_address

[iansjack]

(To the OP, not the previous poster!) You demean yourself, and you insult this site, with your needless use of profanity.

And, as Combuster points out, this is very well documented on hundreds of web sites and books. The PC architecture (at least the original IBM architecture referred to here) is very open. If you can't do the simple groundwork at least try to by polite when asking a question.

[HoTT]

(To the OP, not the previous poster!) You demean yourself, and you insult this site, with your needless use of profanity.

And, as Combuster points out, this is very well documented on hundreds of web sites and books. The PC architecture (at least the original IBM architecture referred to here) is very open. If you can't do the simple groundwork at least try to by polite when asking a question.

I am sorry, if I did insult you or this site (if that's even possible). I can only guess that you refer to the topic, especially this part:

Where is the fucking manual?

Which was intended as a reference to to the common RTFM acronym, that is even used in the wiki of this page. I hadn't foreseen that this could be insulting to anyone here.

To the topic at hand: I did find the table combuster mentioned and a ton of further ones on the internet. Indeed there is a lot of information out there, but no one refers to an authoritative source. Take for example the references listed in the wikipedia article linked. That's some webpage, another wiki and 14 years old book. Is there really no IEEE or other kind of standard or at least an manual from IBM or Intel/Microsoft that describes how it should work?

That something as widespread and important as the IBM-PC and it's descendants have no authoritative document describing them, seems weird to me, thus the question.

[iansjack]

This is a site visited by youngsters. Keep your potty-mouthed profanity to yourself. If you must you say "Where is TFM?".

It was an arbitrary decision by IBM. The authoritative document would be the original IBM technical manuals. But you don't need an authoritative reference for such a widely known convention.

[Octocontrabass]

That something as widespread and important as the IBM-PC and it's descendants have no authoritative document describing them, seems weird to me, thus the question.

You didn't stumble across any of IBM's technical reference manuals in your hour of searching?

[HoTT]

That something as widespread and important as the IBM-PC and it's descendants have no authoritative document describing them, seems weird to me, thus the question.

You didn't stumble across any of IBM's technical reference manuals in your hour of searching?

Thanks, sometimes you just miss the correct word to search for.

This is a site visited by youngsters. Keep your potty-mouthed profanity to yourself.

No need to get personal.

[iansjack]

It's difficult to avoid being personal when you persist in using gutter language on a forum frequented by youngsters.

I was affording you the courtesy of supposing that you were intelligent enough to realize the desirability of using such language when it was pointed out to you. Clearly I was overestimating.

You think I'm getting personal? You ain't seen nothing yet!

[onlyonemac]

I actually haven't seen that many young members here to be honest, and those that are are likely to be the intelligent kind who've probably already seen "RTFM" written out in full in many places beforehand anyway and who are mature enough to understand the concept of vulgar language and to use it appropriately.

[mallard]

That something as widespread and important as the IBM-PC and it's descendants have no authoritative document describing them, seems weird to me, thus the question.

That's very true. It is "weird"; the problem is that during a significant and important era of the development of the "x86 PC" platform (when things like PS/2 were developed) there was no single authority in control of the platform. To understand why, you need to learn a little history:

In 1987, IBM introduced the PS/2 line of computers, the first IBM systems to have 80386 processors, VGA graphics and the PS/2 keyboard/mouse controller. Unfortunately, they also based the systems on a new architecture, known as the "micro-channel architecture" or "MCA", based somewhat on IBM's mainframe architectures. Unlike the older PC architectures, this new architecture was not so "open" and other manufacturers who wanted to clone the new systems would need to pay IBM a licence fee. Unsurprisingly, most chose not to do this and instead based new systems on the older (but fully "open") PC/AT architecture, but with some of the new features (such as the 80386); this approach was pioneered by Compaq (who actually managed to get their '386-based PC/AT compatible in the market before IBMs PS/2s) and for a short while, systems like this were known as "Compaq-compatible". At that point, IBM lost control of the PC platform.

Modern PCs are basically "Compaq-compatible" systems, not PS/2s (they died out). Over time, some of the PS/2 technologies such as VGA (even IBM made VGAs for PC/AT systems) and the keyboard/mouse controller made their way into common PCs and other technologies like VLB, PCI, EISA, various BIOS extensions, etc. were developed and became popular (or not), but not universal. It wasn't until around 1996/7 that companies like Intel and Microsoft started to exert some control over the platform (with initiatives like ACPI and PC-97). Up until around 1998, it was still common to find new PCs with only a PC/AT-compatible "single channel" keyboard controller.

That's why you can't find any "authoritative" document covering details of the PC platform from this era; at the time there was no "authority" to write them! For the specific case of the PS/2 controller's I/O ports, these chosen to be back-compatible with the PC/AT. The closest thing to an "authoritative" reference for the PS/2 controller would be IBM's reference material from the time.

[HoTT]

I actually haven't seen that many young members here to be honest, and those that are are likely to be the intelligent kind who've probably already seen "RTFM" written out in full in many places beforehand anyway and who are mature enough to understand the concept of vulgar language and to use it appropriately.

I would assume all those youngsters used to speak in a way someone with perfect manners found offensive and got subsequently scared away. (Just reread the thread the thread with the assumption, that I'd could be a youngster)

[iansjack]

7: Please try to behave

.... No obscenities. ....

8: Please consider your future

Other people will form an opinion of you based on what you've written. This includes people who can help you when you're having problems, people who might volunteer to write software for your OS one day, and occasionally even potential employers. These forums have been around for a long time and will be around for a lot longer; and anyone can search through all of your posts and see everything you have written, all the way back to your very first post.

[Schol-R-LEA]

A lot of this comes down to community standards, and in this community, obscenities are not considered appropriate or constructive. Trust me, I would never post anything here using the same tone I do in (for example) the forums for The Daily WTF?, which are a cesspit that can be on par with Something Awful at times.

[Antti]

It seems that we have quite many young members. However, it should not be the reason we should avoid using such language. We should avoid using such language anyway no matter how old our members are. Maybe this is just an opinion but I believe most of us agree with this. When it comes to the common acronym, using it is almost always bad for reasons other than its exact origin.

[iansjack]

It seems that we have quite many young members. However, it should not be the reason we should avoid using such language.

I agree 100% with what you are saying, that intelligent discourse doesn't warrant the sort of coarse language that may be used among adults in private, but I do think that the presence of minors on these forums make it extra important. It's not the only reason, but an additional one.

But, in the end, you are correct. The use of profanity on a public forum shows a failing on the part of the poster; a failure to be able to communicate. In any case, it is clearly against forum rules.