Subject: Re: Are PC164 based alphas supported?
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Gallatin <email@example.com>
Date: 08/11/1997 10:54:09
Thanks for the information. It was truly illuminating.
Chris G. Demetriou writes:
> The problem is with the missing system-specific PALcode ops that MILO
> doesn't implement. They deal with interrupt handling, and on a "real
> OSF PALcode" system they _MUST_ be used or the system will not
> function properly. Given their nature, it makes the most sense to
> implement them in the PALcode, and not to special-case them in the
> kernel for different "real" vs. "non-real' PALcode types.
Ahh.. so this explains at least one reason why the linux people have
no truley generic kernel, and why their code is littered with #ifdefs
which distinguish betweeen SRM/MILO systems and each system type.
Just out of personal curiosity, which PALcode operations does the MILO
version of the palcode not implement?