From: Alan Shieh <ashieh@cs.cornell.edu>
To: Daniel Rodrick <daniel.rodrick@gmail.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linux Newbie <linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org>,
kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org>,
linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:01:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44DCE1FD.5020901@cs.cornell.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <292693080608100118rc910647l7a8bf95fbc2df26c@mail.gmail.com>
> Umm ... pardon me if I am wrong, but I think you implemented a "UNDI
> Driver" (i.e. the code that provides implementation of UNDI API, and
> often resides in the NIC ROM) . I'm looking forward to write a
> "Universal Protocol Driver" (i.e. the code that will be a linux kernel
> module and will, use the UNDI API provided by your UNDI driver).
I wrote a universal protocol driver that runs in Linux, and talks to an
extended UNDI stack implemented in Etherboot.
>> At minimum, one needs to be able to probe for !PXE presence, which means
>> you need to map in 0-1MB of physical memory. The PXE stack's memory also
>> needs to be mapped in. My UNDI driver relies on a kernel module, generic
>> across all NICs, to accomplish these by mapping in the !PXE probe area
>> and PXE memory in a user process.
>
>
> I'm pretty newbie to PXE, but I I think !PXE structure is used to find
> out the location & size of PXE & UNDI runtime routines, by UNIVERSAL
> PROTOCOL DRIVERS. Is my understanding wrong?
That's right.
> Also, I think that UNDI driver routine will need not call PXE routines
> (TFTP / DHCP etc) as UNDI routines would be at a lower level providing
> access to the bare bones hardware. Is this correct?
I'm calling the UNDI level routines (packet send, interrupt handling)
from my driver.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-11 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-07 10:39 Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux Daniel Rodrick
2006-08-07 15:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-07 16:11 ` Daniel Rodrick
2006-08-07 16:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-08 5:13 ` Daniel Rodrick
2006-08-08 15:04 ` Alan Shieh
2006-08-10 8:18 ` Daniel Rodrick
2006-08-11 20:01 ` Alan Shieh [this message]
2006-08-10 20:59 ` Donald Becker
2006-08-10 21:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-11 20:48 ` Alan Shieh
2006-08-08 16:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-07 18:00 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-08-07 18:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-28 9:59 Deepak Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44DCE1FD.5020901@cs.cornell.edu \
--to=ashieh@cs.cornell.edu \
--cc=daniel.rodrick@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-net@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox