Re: >64MB RAM problems, why?

From: Richard B. Johnson (root@chaos.analogic.com)
Date: Wed Apr 05 2000 - 14:26:51 EST


On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 tcrompton@home.com wrote:
>
> > And I know some users who still have this problem using kernel 2.2, so
> > why does this bug occur?
>
> It's still a BIOS problem: There are two different BIOS calls that are
> supposed to tell you how much memory you have.
> One of them in general doesn't support more than 64 MB. The other
> theoretically supports a lot more, but some BIOSes either lack it or have
> a broken implementation of it.
> On most BIOSes, Linux detects more memory without problems.
>
> > I say bug because new users are convinced that this is a Linux bug,
> > since Windows 95 or greater detects all of their RAM just fine.
>
> Since they don't release source, we can't check what they're doing.
> My guess is they're doing it the hard way (actually accessing the memory
> and seeing if it triggers a problem).
>
> LLaP
> bero
>

Upon startup Win/NT writes to (most) all RAM above 1 Megabyte, then reads
it back. You can watch this with a logic analyzer. It does this with
parity-check disabled and, FYI, never enables it after.

We might want to do something like this to get rid of broken BIOS
dependencies.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.3.41 on an i686 machine (800.63 BogoMips).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 21:00:15 EST