bootloader vs. bootloader_api

[ViktorPopp]

the 3rd edition uses the one with _api at the end but is it really better?

[tsatke]

You need bootloader in your build, and bootloader_api in the kernel. They are two different things.
The build builds a runnable image, which contains the bootloader and your kernel. Both your kernel and the bootloader use the bootloader_api, which is a standardized way of communicating at runtime (for example where the kernel should be mapped).

[ViktorPopp]

but my kernel does not use bootloader_api. It only uses the bootloader crate...

[bjorn3]

The second edition uses bootloader 0.9 where the kernel indeed directly depends on the bootloader crate and uses the external bootimage program to build the disk image. The third edition uses bootloader 0.11 however where the kernel needs to use bootloader_api while the bootloader crate exclusively handles building a disk image from the kernel.

[ViktorPopp]

So can I use both together without issues?

[bjorn3]

You have to either use bootloader 0.9 + bootimage or bootloader 0.11 + bootloader_api. You can't mix bootloader 0.9 and bootloader_api.

[ViktorPopp]

But bootloader v0.11 does not support the map_physical_memory feature. Whats the alternative to that ergarding the memeory management from the 2nd edetion?

[bjorn3]

You can pass a config to the bootloader_api::entry_point!() call inside your kernel crate. This config has a field mapping where you can configure all kinds of mappings the bootloader set up, including a mapping for the physical memory.