Re: Computer with floppy
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:23 pm
Ok, i see. I'll post back when I rewrite my kernel!
The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
http://f.osdev.org/
Speaking of goals, you may want to consider UEFI too. My system is going to be designed for the 3 legacy systems I have, but already of the twenty some odd people I know that have computers, 85% are UEFI, so my legacy boot loader wouldn't even work.Brendan wrote:I'm not sure what your goals are, but in general it's almost always a better idea to use long mode and/or protected mode.
Interesting, would a uefi boot loader work on legacy systems. I'm probably the only odd one that prefers older computersTightCoderEx wrote:Speaking of goals, you may want to consider UEFI too. My system is going to be designed for the 3 legacy systems I have, but already of the twenty some odd people I know that have computers, 85% are UEFI, so my legacy boot loader wouldn't even work.Brendan wrote:I'm not sure what your goals are, but in general it's almost always a better idea to use long mode and/or protected mode.
Not without a UEFI emulation layer, and I doubt anyone will want to use one of those.feare56 wrote:Interesting, would a uefi boot loader work on legacy systems.
I do most of my testing on a PC with a 40MHz 386. (I've also done some work on a computer with a 25MHz 68040, but progress is slow due to lack of documentation...)feare56 wrote:I'm probably the only odd one that prefers older computers
The best approach is to build an abstraction layer into your boot code. For example, you can (and I do) have some boot loaders for BIOS and few other boot loaders for UEFI, where the boot loader hides the differences between BIOS and UEFI and ensures that nothing else in the OS has to care what the firmware was.Octocontrabass wrote:Not without a UEFI emulation layer, and I doubt anyone will want to use one of those.feare56 wrote:Interesting, would a uefi boot loader work on legacy systems.
That pretty much sums it up, as at this level of development you want to be as independent as possible. Linus Torvalds was even a bit more crass about it, characterizing going into protected mode as "turning off the stinking BIOS". There is and has been for sometime now, a level of exclusivity in the desktop environment wherein it's getting pretty difficult to get information about architecture and chipsets from the horses mouth.Brendan wrote: For example, you can (and I do) have some boot loaders for BIOS and few other boot loaders for UEFI, where the boot loader hides the differences between BIOS and UEFI and ensures that nothing else in the OS has to care what the firmware was.
Most UEFI have a BIOS emulation mode, so I would assume my loader would work under that condition, although I've never tried it.My system is going to be designed for the 3 legacy systems I have, but already of the twenty some odd people I know that have computers, 85% are UEFI, so my legacy boot loader wouldn't even work.
Code: Select all
EXTERN kernel;
void main()
{
printf("Hello Kernel!");
}