On 03/09/18 12:27, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:47:27PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 03/08/18 16:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:10:30PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > [...] > >>>> For OVMF (x86), I guess the initial set of properties should come from >>>> the "-D FOO[=BAR]" build flags that OVMF currently supports. (The list >>>> might grow or change incompatibly over time, so this is just a raw >>>> starter idea.) >>> >>> I really don't want to see us using firmware implementation specific >>> property names in these files. It means libvirt will require knowledge >>> of what each different firmware's property names mean. >>> >>> We need to have some core standardized set of property names that can >>> be provided by any firmware implementation using the same terminology. >>> >>> If we want to /also/ provide some extra firmeware-specific property >>> names that would be ok for informative purposes, but when lbivirt is >>> picking which firmware file to use, it would only ever look at the >>> standardized property names/values. >> >> This is a reasonable requirement from the libvirt side. >> >> Unfortunately (or not), it requires someone (or a tight group of people) >> to collect the features of all virtual firmwares in existence, and >> extract a common set of properties that maps back to each firmware one >> way or another. > > Hmm, if people consider the above worthwhile (no clue how much time & > investigation it takes to arrive at a common set of properties) maybe > slowly we should start collecting such a page? From a quick look up, > list of open source firmware implementations I found so (besides OVMF & > ArmVirt): > > - OpenBIOS > - SmartFirmware > - OpenBoot > - CoreBoot > - U-Boot > - SLOF > - ... > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBIOS > > I notice you said "virtual firmwares". I couldn't find such a list from > my look up. > > Hmm, I also wonder if the "arriving at a common set of properties across > existing virtual firmwares" is an absolute blocker. That's for Daniel to decide. I can't sensibly generalize from OVMF & ArmVirt to other firmwares, without knowing them. Thanks Laszlo > >> This is not unusual (basically this is how all standards >> bodies work that intend to codify existing practice), it just needs a >> bunch of work and coordination. We'll have to maintain a registry. >> >> Personally I can't comment on anything else than OVMF and the ArmVirt >> firmwares. >> >> Thanks, >> Laszlo > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
