Talk:83Plus:OS:Ram Pages

From WikiTI
Jump to: navigation, search

Really I figure this is where we should decide what pages should be temporary and what could be long term. Also, if any current programs use ram pages we should claim them and possible leave some kinda of marker on the page it self. Last is to find out when tios uses these pages. --Jim e 20:14, 24 March 2006 (PST)

Anyone know what pages emu8x uses.--Jim e 00:49, 25 March 2006 (PST)


There is definitely USB code that accesses some of the other RAM pages, but I haven't traced to see if/when it's called. I would guess it's for receiving bulk data or something along those lines. And it's also completely possible that it's never actually used by the OS, but it's something to look in to. --Dan Englender 21:52, 24 March 2006 (PST)

The OS has at least the capability to receive both raw and virtual packets to either the main RAM or pages 82-83 (there are separate flags, I don't remember which ones, for "write raw packets to 82-83" and "write virtual packets to 82-83.") Precisely when it does so I don't know. At any rate, during actual variable transmission I would make no assumptions about how much of those pages will be used. For ordinary silent stuff (screenshots, remote control if that exists) I'd guess that they are safe. FloppusMaximus 11:39, 25 March 2006 (PST)
I just did a simple test, it does seem to use page 83(no changes to 82). I sent a large app then checked to see if 83 was alter, it was. It contained the first page of the app I had sent. I was even able to execute my app with a simple program (3E83D306C38040). It maybe reasonable to assume that only 83 is used for such transfers, being that the os makes it a point to strike out some of what would be the header of the app.--Jim e 18:36, 25 March 2006 (PST)

page 83

"4000h through 4080h" I'm not certain that is correct. I don't see an any indicator that suggest that entire block is used, rather only the would be pages for application use. If it was though that would suggest that an OS page could bcall into an app, which, upon first inspection of 2.40, would require an OS update. I'll leave as is though because I'm not absolutely certain. Someone more OS savvy should be more thorough.--Jim e 00:28, 23 May 2006 (PDT)