OSDev.org

jal wrote:I firmly disagree. It is an official BIOS API, described in an official document (as far as official goes). You don't *need* to know what it does(1), you only need to know when and how to use it.

My intention is not to start a flame or anything but I think you're missing the point of official documents. Besides, the "knowing when" part usually implies that you need to know what something does. If something is described in a document doesn't mean you don't need to understand it. I find your argument not to make much sense.

EDIT: If what you're saying were true (or that way of thinking were correct), they wouldn't put so much emphasis on systems programming classes in universities. The point of those classes is not meant to train people in operating system development - they are perfectly aware that most people taking those classes won't be working on an OS anyway. Knowing how they work helps you write better applications .

Love4Boobies wrote:[the "knowing when" part usually implies that you need to know what something does. If something is described in a document doesn't mean you don't need to understand it. I find your argument not to make much sense.

That's your prerogative. No point in continuing this discussion then.


JAL

Hi,

Love4Boobies wrote:Might be a good idea to find out what this actually does first All we know is that it optimises the BIOS settings for long mode but we have no clue what this means. Wonder if stlw has any knowledge of this?

I'ld assume that AMD wanted to provide some way for a BIOS to find out what the OS's intentions are, just in case there's ever any reason for a BIOS to care. In this case, it wouldn't imply that there's currently a reason for a BIOS to care (or that there will ever be a reason for any BIOS to care), and maybe the BIOS function will never actually do anything.


Cheers,

Brendan

Brendan wrote:I'ld assume that AMD wanted to provide some way for a BIOS to find out what the OS's intentions are, just in case there's ever any reason for a BIOS to care. In this case, it wouldn't imply that there's currently a reason for a BIOS to care (or that there will ever be a reason for any BIOS to care), and maybe the BIOS function will never actually do anything.

Furthermore, it thus makes sense why the function was provided and documented before there was any use for it, as then when there was a use for it existing systems would already be using it. Otherwise it wouldn't serve much purpose, if it did become necessary but nobody had put it in their code.

onlyonemac wrote:Furthermore, it thus makes sense why the function was provided and documented before there was any use for it, as then when there was a use for it existing systems would already be using it. Otherwise it wouldn't serve much purpose, if it did become necessary but nobody had put it in their code.

And that's the reason you necromance a 6 year old thread?


JAL

jal wrote:

onlyonemac wrote:Furthermore, it thus makes sense why the function was provided and documented before there was any use for it, as then when there was a use for it existing systems would already be using it. Otherwise it wouldn't serve much purpose, if it did become necessary but nobody had put it in their code.

And that's the reason you necromance a 6 year old thread?


JAL

While I don't support thread necromancy, I'll play devil's advocate and point out that this thread was linked to from a recent one on the same subject.

Kazinsal wrote:While I don't support thread necromancy, I'll play devil's advocate and point out that this thread was linked to from a recent one on the same subject.

Well ok, in that specific case I can somewhat understand :).


JAL