Re: [REVIEW/TEST] boot0 changes

From: Julian Elischer <julian_at_elischer.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> 
> Ok, now that the dust has settled, I try again.
> 
> Can people please test/review these changes to boot0.  They
> merge closer the SIO and video versions of boot0.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Index: boot0.S
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/boot/i386/boot0/boot0.S,v
> retrieving revision 1.8
> diff -u -r1.8 boot0.S
> --- boot0.S	14 May 2004 20:28:31 -0000	1.8
> +++ boot0.S	3 Jun 2004 15:48:22 -0000
> _at__at_ -95,14 +95,10 _at__at_
>  #ifdef SIO
>  /*
>   * Initialize the serial port.
> - * Must save DX (contains drive number)

if this comment is not actually false, tehn wouldn't it be better
to keep such essoteric info around, maybe bringing them closer together
by ADDING it to the other ones..


>   */
> -		pushw %dx			# Save
> -		xorw %dx,%dx			# Port: COM1
>  		movb COMSPEED,%al		# defined by Makefile
>  		movb $0x00,%ah			# BIOS: Set COM Port
> -		int $0x14			#  Parameters
> -		popw %dx			# Restore
> +		call bioscom
>  #endif /* SIO */
>  /*
>   * Check what flags were loaded with us, specifically, Use a predefined Drive.
> _at__at_ -199,23 +195,21 _at__at_
>  		callw putx			#  item
>  /*
>   * Now that we've printed the drive (if we needed to), display a prompt.
> - * Get ready for the input by noting the time.

ditto.. I don't see th epurpose in removing comments that help one
understand teh code unless they are actually wrong.

Are they wrong?
Received on Thu Jun 03 2004 - 10:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:55 UTC