Re: [PATCH] Use correct x86 reboot vector

[Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>]

Jos Hulzink wrote:
> On Sunday 11 May 2003 05:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Hmm.. Doesnt' a _real_ hardware reset actually use a magic segment that
> > isn't even really true real mode? I have this memory that the reset value
> > for a i386 has CS=0xf000, but the shadow base register actually contains
> > 0xffff0000. In other words, the CPU actually starts up in "unreal" mode,
> > and will fetch the first instruction from physical address 0xfffffff0.
> >
> > At least that was true on an original 386. It's something that could
> > easily have changed since.

I got my info from an article on the net which says that a 386 does
behave as you say, but it is possible for the system designer to
arrange that it boots into the 286-compatible vector at physical
address 0x000ffff0.  It states that the feature is specifically so
that system designers don't have to create a "memory hole" (that's as
much detail as it gives).

I can't be arsed to look in a real 386 manual though :)

> Source: 80386 Programmers Reference Manual, Intel (1986)
> 
> EIP is set 0000FFF0H
> CS is set F000H
> 
> After RESET, lines A31-A20 are FORCED high till a far JMP is done.
> 
> So, unfortunately we have to say Linus is right once again. Damn ;-) My 
> conclusion is that we are unable to use the CPU reset as the reference for 
> warm boots, for we can't control A312-A20 in real mode. But as far as I can 
> see, my arguments still hold...

You can set up unreal mode but it is quite fiddly.

-- Jamie