This page in the universal binary concept doc:
#//
says that the partition format is different for Macs running on Intel
processors.
Is there any more detailed info/documentation available on what
specifically is different?
thanks,
-mark
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com
This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Mark Eaton writes:

says that the partition format is different for Macs running on Intel
processors.

Is there any more detailed info/documentation available on what
specifically is different?

I imagine it would depend on what sort of firmware they are using in
their x86 box. I don't have a transition kit, so I'm just guessing.

If they go with a standard Wintel BIS, then it would be a standard
X86 Wintel "fdisk" partition table. If they go with EFI, then it would
be the EFI scheme (called GFI I think).

See #partitioning
for what Darwin/x86 uses.

Drew

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Jun 8, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:

Mark Eaton writes:
>
>>
>says that the partition format is different for Macs running on Intel
>processors.
>>
>Is there any more detailed info/documentation available on what
>specifically is different?
>>
>>
>
I imagine it would depend on what sort of firmware they are using in
their x86 box. I don't have a transition kit, so I'm just guessing.

If they go with a standard Wintel BIS, then it would be a standard
X86 Wintel "fdisk" partition table. If they go with EFI, then it
would
be the EFI scheme (called GFI I think).

See
index.html#partitioning
for what Darwin/x86 uses.

I didn't make it to WWDC this year but rumor has it the transition
boxes are using a standard BIS therefore the partition table is the
fdisk format just like current Darwin releases. I don't think
Apple has been explicit in their real choice for what will eventually
ship. Hopefully they'll communicate that to us within the next few
months.

I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.

cr

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Jun 8, 2005, at 2:25 PM, chuck remes wrote:
Jun 8, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>Mark Eaton writes:
says that the partition format is different for Macs running on
Intel
processors.

Is there any more detailed info/documentation available on what
specifically is different?
>>
>I imagine it would depend on what sort of firmware they are using in
>their x86 box. I don't have a transition kit, so I'm just guessing.
>>
>If they go with a standard Wintel BIS, then it would be a standard
>X86 Wintel "fdisk" partition table. If they go with EFI, then it
>would
>be the EFI scheme (called GFI I think).
>>
>See
>index.html#partitioning
>for what Darwin/x86 uses.
>
I didn't make it to WWDC this year but rumor has it the transition
boxes are using a standard BIS therefore the partition table is
the fdisk format just like current Darwin releases. I don't
think Apple has been explicit in their real choice for what will
eventually ship. Hopefully they'll communicate that to us within
the next few months.

Correct. We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what
is going to be in the RMs on these new machines, and what partition
scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to
make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon
as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the
transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.

I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.

The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use F
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've
heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Hang in there
- Dean

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Jun 8, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Dean Reece wrote:

The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use F
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've
heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Speaking of opinions about what Apple should use, though I'm nobody
important, let me offer my 2 cents

The most shocking thing to me in the announcement was that none of
the released material mentions anything other than IA-32. Please,
guys, if it's at all possible, use x86-64 out of the gate. Even if
you have to keep the system 32-bit for now (somebody smack me down if
I'm wrong, but I believe it's supposed to be possible to use x86-64
extensions without using 64-bit addresses).

I actually already filed an enhancement bug on this, while I was
somewhat more emotional than one should be while writing a bug.

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Jun 8, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Tim Seufert wrote:

Jun 8, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Dean Reece wrote:
>
>
>The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
>1) They don't want us to use BIS
>2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use F
>3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI
>>
>This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've
>heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.
>>
>
Speaking of opinions about what Apple should use, though I'm nobody
important, let me offer my 2 cents

The most shocking thing to me in the announcement was that none of
the released material mentions anything other than IA-32. Please,
guys, if it's at all possible, use x86-64 out of the gate. Even if
you have to keep the system 32-bit for now (somebody smack me down
if I'm wrong, but I believe it's supposed to be possible to use
x86-64 extensions without using 64-bit addresses).

I will second this off to file an enhancement request when I get a
chance.
-Shawn

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Jun 8, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Dean Reece wrote:

Jun 8, 2005, at 2:25 PM, chuck remes wrote:
>
>Jun 8, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>>
Mark Eaton writes:

says that the partition format is different for Macs running on
Intel
processors.

Is there any more detailed info/documentation available on what
specifically is different?

I imagine it would depend on what sort of firmware they are using in
their x86 box. I don't have a transition kit, so I'm just
guessing.

If they go with a standard Wintel BIS, then it would be a standard
X86 Wintel "fdisk" partition table. If they go with EFI, then it
would
be the EFI scheme (called GFI I think).

See
index.html#partitioning
for what Darwin/x86 uses.

>>
>I didn't make it to WWDC this year but rumor has it the transition
>boxes are using a standard BIS therefore the partition table is
>the fdisk format just like current Darwin releases. I don't
>think Apple has been explicit in their real choice for what will
>eventually ship. Hopefully they'll communicate that to us within
>the next few months.
>>
>
Correct. We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what
is going to be in the RMs on these new machines, and what
partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a
position to make that information available, but we will
communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that
what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be
present in the final product.
>
>
>I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.
>>
>
The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use F
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've
heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

I think the "general concensus" is right on the money. Please
BRADCAST this info as soon as is reasonable. See you at next WWDC
with an x86 laptop

cr

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

A great feature of the current Macintosh RM (firmware) which is
based on Firmware (F, ) is the
ability for PCI adapter cards to include both the Firmware
driver, if required for booting, and also the Mac S driver
"encapsulated" for the PCI adapter card. This allows the Macintosh
platform to have the true "plug and play" elegance of a PCI adapter
card appearing to be "driverless" because the user simply puts the
card in the Macintosh and it "just works". The current Windows
environment is vastly interior by requiring some type of BIS driver
to reside in the PCI adapter card RM to boot, but then during boot,
the Windows environment will "detect new hardware" and require a disk
to be available to install the Windows S driver.

If Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI, http://www.intel.com/
technology/efi/index.htm) used as the RM code for a Macintosh based
on an Intel processor would still allow PCI adapter cards to include
not only the S boot drivers, but also the actual Mac S driver
"encapsulated", then EFI would seem to provide as good as solution as
the current F. it would seem that F has very distinct
"end user experience" advantage over EFI. Can anyone clarify if EFI
would support PCI adapter cards with their own RM's having both the
S boot drivers and also the Mac S driver "encapsulated" that
would give the user experience of "driverless" PCI adapter cards?

Joel

Jun 8, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Dean Reece wrote:

Jun 8, 2005, at 2:25 PM, chuck remes wrote:
>
>
>Jun 8, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>>
>>
Mark Eaton writes:

says that the partition format is different for Macs running on
Intel
processors.

Is there any more detailed info/documentation available on what
specifically is different?

I imagine it would depend on what sort of firmware they are using in
their x86 box. I don't have a transition kit, so I'm just
guessing.

If they go with a standard Wintel BIS, then it would be a standard
X86 Wintel "fdisk" partition table. If they go with EFI, then it
would
be the EFI scheme (called GFI I think).

See
index.html#partitioning
for what Darwin/x86 uses.


>>
>I didn't make it to WWDC this year but rumor has it the transition
>boxes are using a standard BIS therefore the partition table is
>the fdisk format just like current Darwin releases. I don't
>think Apple has been explicit in their real choice for what will
>eventually ship. Hopefully they'll communicate that to us within
>the next few months.
>>
>>
>
Correct. We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what
is going to be in the RMs on these new machines, and what
partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a
position to make that information available, but we will
communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that
what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be
present in the final product.
>
>
>
>I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.
>>
>>
>
The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use F
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've
heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Hang in there
- Dean

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%
40sonnettech.com

This email sent to joel.vink (AT) sonnettech (DOT) com
>
>
>
>

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Wed, 2005-06-08 at 21:47 -0700, Joel Vink wrote:
A great feature of the current Macintosh RM (firmware) which is
based on Firmware (F, ) is the
ability for PCI adapter cards to include both the Firmware
driver, if required for booting, and also the Mac S driver
"encapsulated" for the PCI adapter card. This allows the Macintosh
platform to have the true "plug and play" elegance of a PCI adapter
card appearing to be "driverless" because the user simply puts the
card in the Macintosh and it "just works". The current Windows
environment is vastly interior by requiring some type of BIS driver
to reside in the PCI adapter card RM to boot, but then during boot,
the Windows environment will "detect new hardware" and require a disk
to be available to install the Windows S driver.

What about PCI/AGP cards booting on both platforms ? There is a VERY
SIGNIFICANT advantage is staying with Firmware here: A video card
or SCSI card with an F driver would be useable for booting on both
existing PPC machines and newer x86 machines.

Without that feature, it would require to have both firmwares on the
card, which, while possible, is a huge waste of flash space. Flash is
expensive and most cards only have a limited amount of it.

In general, Firmware is a great thing, though we could maybe blame
companies using it today (no name :) for not keeping the working group
alive and slowly letting their implementations drift away from the
standard without ever trying to keep the standard alive

a similar topic, IBM just released on open source "slim" open
firmware implementation (still early version, I think it still lacks
f-code support, pure forth only for now) which we intend to push to
embedded developpers as much as possible.

If Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI, http://www.intel.com/
technology/efi/index.htm) used as the RM code for a Macintosh based
on an Intel processor would still allow PCI adapter cards to include
not only the S boot drivers, but also the actual Mac S driver
"encapsulated", then EFI would seem to provide as good as solution as
the current F. it would seem that F has very distinct
"end user experience" advantage over EFI. Can anyone clarify if EFI
would support PCI adapter cards with their own RM's having both the
S boot drivers and also the Mac S driver "encapsulated" that
would give the user experience of "driverless" PCI adapter cards?

I'm not too concerned by having the S driver in the card's RM. If the
firmware driver has enough to setup an early display (video), load the
kernel (block device), netboot (network device) etc then the
bootloader (BootX) currently does a boot job of picking the S driver on
the root partition and giving it to the kernel at boot. That still
requires installation of a driver when installing the card but I don't
think it's that bad.

I am more concerned by compatibility of card firmware with existing PPC
macs.

Ben.

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com

Jun 14, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

I am more concerned by compatibility of card firmware with existing
PPC
macs.

I'm not too worried about this. Most cards don't need firmware
unless they are
either a) the primary video adapter or b) the controller for the boot
volume.

I can't speak to a), but WRT b), the 3ware FCode I wrote comes in
under 8K
without any attempt on my part at optimisation. I had no trouble
sneaking that
into the existing 3ware RM image.

More worrying is the lack of good documentation or folks willing to
write the
code in the first place.

= Mike

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-drivers mailing list (Darwin-drivers (AT) lists (DOT) apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
%40developershed.com

This email sent to bsdarchive (AT) developershed (DOT) com