qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add nvram to default boot device list


From: Avik Sil
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add nvram to default boot device list
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:15:15 +0530
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1

On 10/12/2012 08:32 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Alexander Graf (address@hidden) wrote:
>> On 12.10.2012, at 02:28, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:03:00AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 12.10.2012, at 00:59, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:34:42AM +0530, Avik Sil wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds nvram specified boot device into qemu default
>>>>>> boot_devices list. This helps firmware to boot from nvram specified
>>>>>> boot device if no -boot option is specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't think this is a good idea, it extends an already
>>>>> deprecated mechanism in a fuzzy way and requires careful checking to
>>>>> see if it could break anything.  On all platforms the boot sequence
>>>>> should be:
>>>>>   if bootindex is specified:
>>>>>           boot according to bootindex
>>>>>   else if -boot is specified:
>>>>>           boot according to -boot sequence
>>>>>   else:
>>>>>           use platform firmware default sequence
>>>>>
>>>>> The last will of course vary by platform, and could depend on platform
>>>>> details like the contents of NVRAM.  Your original idea of making it
>>>>> clear to the guest when -boot has been specified (as opposed to when
>>>>> it contains its default value) was the right one, and this "x" in
>>>>> -boot is going the wrong direction.
>>>>
>>>> Given that this is a fundamental direction for a bunch of machines,
>>>> how about we talk about it on the weekly QEMU call?
>>>
>>> Uh, is this a call I know about?
>>
>> I would hope so. Chris / Juan, who is in charge of the phone numbers these 
>> days?
> 
> Added David to the invite which contains the call details (very
> unfriendly time for .au I'm afraid, 14:00 UTC).
> 
Is it OK if I proxy David as it's unfriendly time for him? Also can this
topic be included in today's call?

Regards,
Avik





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]