qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one fl


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one flash drive
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:45:11 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)

Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> writes:

> On 11/27/13 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Jordan Justen <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your stated purpose for multiple -pflash:
>>>>>
>>>>>     This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OVMF is split 
>>>>> in
>>>>>     two parts, a writeable host file for non-volatile variable
>>>>> storage, and a
>>>>>     read-only part for bootstrap and decompressible executable code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such a split between writable part and read-only part makes sense to me.
>>>>> How is it done in physical hardware?  Single device with configurable
>>>>> write-protect, or two separate devices?
>>>>
>>>> (Jordan could help more.)
>>>>
>>>> Likely one device that's fully writeable.
>>>
>>> Most parts will have a dedicated read-only line.
>>>
>>> Many devices have 'block-locking' that will make some subset of blocks
>>> read-only until a reset.
>>>
>>> In addition to this, many chipsets will allow flash writes to be
>>> protected by triggering SMM when a flash write occurs.
>>>
>>> Using multiple chips are less common due to cost, but this is not a
>>> factor for QEMU. :)
>> 
>> Should we stick to what real hardware does?  Single device, perhaps with
>> block locking.
>
> I can't back a single flash device with two drives (= two host-side
> files), which is the incentive for this change.

There's no fundamental reason why a single device model instance could
not be backed by two block backends, named by two drive properties.

I'm not claiming this is the best solution, just offering it for
consideration.



reply via email to

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