Robert Millan wrote:
>
>> Bootloader will use a mode it
>> chooses. Perhaps we should remove recommended mode fields from the spec
>> altogether or make them somehow optional
>>     
>
> Is that important?  I'm hesitant to do that untill we have better understanding
> on what lead to this decision.
>   
>>>   
>>>       
>> It is useful. It allows payload to say: "I'm ok with video mode but
>> prefer text one"
>>     
>
> Oh, I think I missunderstood what "EGA-standard text mode" means.  Is this
> the same text mode that survived to this day, and is known in GRUB codebase
> as "vga_text"?
>
>   
Yes
>>> Perhaps it would be simpler for us to arrange it so that flags 11 and 12
>>> can't be used at the same time.  We could just say that flag 11 is reserved
>>> and unused, and then put these declarations in the offset that used to be for
>>> VBE.  IIRC there were no possible sections after VBE, so the Framebuffer
>>> section size wouldn't be constrained by that.
>>>
>>> But if you prefer to keep flag 11 operational, I don't object.  I would
>>> probably object to GRUB implementing it though.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> If payload wants to use VBE it will. I think that providing this
>> informtion saves payload a trip to real mode. So this way we encourage
>> saner real-mode-free OS design.
>>     
>
> I'd rather encourage them to use modern flag 12 instead.  In any case, it
> doesn't to keep flag 11 as part of the standard as long as it's optional.
> I'm still not convinced GRUB should implement it, but that's a separate
> discussion.
>
>   
Flag 12 doesn't allow to e.g. change the resolution or do the double
buffering.
>> Do you think it would be useful to make flag 12 structure describe EGA
>> text too? I attach new diff for multiboot.texi. If it's approved it
>> should be simple to implement in grub2 and example kernel
>>     
>
> You forgot to attach it.
>
>   
Fixed


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko