I don't know how widely it is implemented, but I have tested it on
about 6 boards, all pentium or pentium pro, the oldest about 3 years
old, and none of them are from IBM. Most of them are Intel boards.
>"Standard" functions are int 15h, ax=e801h and int 15h, ax=e820h. e820h is
>closest to c7h, it returns a detailed memory map, but it has to be called
>several times, this would bloat setup.S .
I will look into these calls.
Is there any reason to be terribly concerned about adding this code to
setup.S? Even Windows NT knows when a system has more than 64M RAM.
Linux ought to also. I added quite a bit of checking and
instrumentation to setup.S.
>Maybye PARAM+2 can be used for memory between 1 and 16/64MB, and we can add
>PARAM+8 for 16/64MB to 4 GB (I think 8 is the first available offset)?
>We wouldn't break anything that way.
>
>I've been playing with the idea for a while, but I've never found the nerve to
>modify the PARAM table. It also is defined in several places, would it be okay
>to centralize the definitions in a single file?
The biggest obstacle to my just making a sample fix and distributing
the diffs is that I don't have a PARAM table map. If someone will
send me one, I will pick an implementation, distribute, the diffs, and
we can work from there to find the optimal solution.
Thanks,
Larry