On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 18:33 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 5/7/19 9:06 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > This patch set adds support to advertising the firmware types an OS > > supports and follows the same naming used by libvirt. > > > > For now, I've decided to not yet start decorating all x86_64/i686 > > OSes > > we have in osinfo-db with <firmware arch="x86_64|i686" > > type="bios"/>, > > but it may be needed in the future. > > > > Also, this patch set only adds info about UEFI support for Fedora > > and > > RHEL (well, Silverblue and CentOS will get it for free). So, it'll > > have > > to be expanded later on. > > > > Fabiano Fidêncio (4): > > schema: Add firmware support to <os/> > > test: Add firmware related tests > > fedora: Add info about UEFI support > > rhel: Add info about UEFI support > > > > data/os/fedoraproject.org/fedora-19.xml.in | 3 +++ > > data/os/redhat.com/rhel-6.9.xml.in | 3 +++ > > data/os/redhat.com/rhel-7.0.xml.in | 2 ++ > > data/os/redhat.com/rhel-8.0.xml.in | 2 ++ > > data/schema/osinfo.rng.in | 26 > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/osinfo.py | 17 ++++++++++++++ > > tests/test_firmwares.py | 27 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/util.py | 11 ++++++++- > > 8 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 tests/test_firmwares.py > > > > What's the criteria for 'support' status here, just officially > advertised in distro docs? If so, do you have links? Quick googling > didn't give me much for fedora and rhel "support" status here means officially advertised by the distro docs and also (manually) tested that it works for them. In the v2, I'll add the links for the documentation. > > How do you envision we would advertise something like secureboot > support... as its own type='efi-secureboot', an extra attribute, a > sub > element, etc. For that matter how does libvirt new firmware= support > handle it? So, in these patches I'm proposing: <os> <firmware arch='all|x86_64|armv7l' type='bios|efi' supported='true|false'/> </os> When taking secure boot into account, I'd extend what we have now and add: <os> <firmware arch='all|x86_64|armv7l' type='bios|efi' supported='true|false' secure='true|false'/> </os> What do you think about this? One other thing that you didn't raise but that I'm not exactly convinced on how to do is how to expose the bios support. I may be mistaken but I don't think any app would actually want to check whether bios is supported (although apps would want to check when bios is *not* supported). So, for now, I'd *not* add info about bios and would have to add an API for returning the supported types and another one for returning the *non* supported types. It's either this or start adding info in a bunch of entries about bios being supported (and here I can see some issues because bios may not be exactly the way to go for different arches ... well, a lot of testing/research would have to be done anyways). What's your opinion/preference on this? > > - Cole Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
