|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] switch to seavgabios |
Date: | Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:39:44 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 |
On 04/17/2012 09:29 AM, malc wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:On 04/17/2012 07:33 AM, malc wrote:On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:On 04/17/12 13:40, malc wrote:On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:Hi, This patch series switches the vgabios binaries shipped by qemu from the lgpl'ed vgabios to the seabios version. There should be no guest-visible changes (especially no regressions) in theory. The only known (and intentional) exception is the vesa 2.0 protected mode interface which is not implemented by the seavgabios.What's the reason for it not being done?In summary: Nontrivial effort for questionable gains.It worked before, and it should continue to do so. Seabios not having a PM interface is a regression.First, the lgpl'ed vgabios provides the vesa pmi for the bochs interface (-vga std) only, for the cirrus it is not available.Well aware, Revision 1.48 has some comments.=> It can't be a critical feature if our default vga is not supported.Opinions are irrelevant, the feature was available before it should continue to be available.I don't think that's a reasonable position to take. Do you have a specific workload that uses the pm interface?Yes, but i need to find time and energy to find out which demos use PM window setting.
Okay, it would be very helpful if you could. I think it's fine to hold off on SeaVGABIOS for 1.1 but it would be nice to get it in for 1.2.
Having a specific example of something that needs to not break makes it a whole lot easier to deal with IMHO.
Second, the display panning via vesa pmi was broken in qemu for three years(!) and nobody noticed. The linux kernel's vesafb can use the vesa pmi, it is disabled by default though due to bioses tending to be buggy. I'm not aware of other users. => Is this actually used by anyone? Seems not ...It's used by me, when i feel nostalgic and want to watch old DOS stuff.Do you have a specific workload that you know uses the pm interface that you can share?Do you have a specific reason for asking the same question twice (puzzled)
I don't think it's reasonable to claim something is a regression unless there's a real test case that breaks that others can reasonably reproduce. Hence my emphasize on talking about a specific workload over an abstract feature.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
I'd like to confirm that the code actually works today before we try to make it work in a new firmware.Well, i wrote the patch on which code in LGPL vga bios is based, so yeah, it's a pretty safe bet it works.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |