Re: my plan for Multiboot 2

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:17:54PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >> I think cpu-independency should come after possible incompatible changes
> >> since if we bring bad but compatible decision to non-x86 then it will be
> >> difficult to eradicate.
> >>     
> >
> > I don't understand very well;  could you give an example of problematic
> > situation?
> >
> >   
> 
> The most obvious are feature bits: we have statically allocated 32 bits,
> 16 optional, 16 required features. On platforms where OS needs a lot of
> hardware info it may be too few.
> Another problem is pointer-rich mbi which needs complicated processing
> before it can be relocated. Since often it has to be done before
> launching C code it makes startup assembly unnecessarily complex

It's not essential that we add non-x86 support first.  I only suggested it
because then non-x86 platforms wouldn't have to wait for the whole drafting
process, and I wouldn't want to discuss spec decisions with the pressure of
having it ready ASAP in order to support new platforms.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."