From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Thoughts on physical address and DMA
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:49:40 +0300
Lines:	20
Message-ID:	<3B87D724.24375966@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<f5c79439 DOT 0108171412 DOT 689b2a6b AT posting DOT google DOT com> <1438-Sat18Aug2001102628+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B7ED952 DOT 99DF5497 AT yahoo DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	192.116.55.139
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	fu-berlin.de 998758261 1048199 192.116.55.139 (16 [61365])
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Nick wrote:
> 
> In other words, to get the linear address for physical address `foo', you
> would do `foo + __djgpp_conventional_base'.

The text you quoted from the FAQ doesn't mention physical address at all. 
That's no accident: there's no physical address involved in these
computations, only a linear address and an offset from the DS base address.

> If it's unclear, this is a snippet that should
> help:
> 
> linear = physical + __djgpp_conventional_base;
> physical2 = linear - __djgpp_conventional_base;

No, the computation does this:

  linear_zero_based = DS_relative - DS_base_address

There's no physical address involved here, anywhere.

- Raw text -