On 04/19/18 02:09, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:32:06 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 04/18/18 08:02, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> [...]
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Looks good to me overall.
>>>
>>>> +{ 'enum' : 'FirmwareType',
>>>> + 'data' : [ 'bios', 'slof', 'uboot', 'uefi' ] }
>>>
>>> openbios missing.
>>>
>>>> +{ 'enum' : 'FirmwareArchitecture',
>>>> + 'data' : [ 'aarch64', 'arm', 'i386', 'x86_64' ] }
>>>
>>> ppc(64) missing (but you have slof above ;) ...
>>> s390 too.
>>
>> I figured those would be contributed by people that actually use them,
>> as separate patches :) In fact I would rather prefer removing "slof" and
>> "uboot" from this initial version, because I have zero clue about them.
>
> I've only been able to skim this discussion, so apologies if I've
> missed things. I'm pretty unclear on the overall purpose of this, but
> in particular this FirmwareType field seems pretty weird.
>
> Specifically the things in the list don't really seem comparable to
> each other: UEFI is a specified interface, BIOS is a de-facto
> interface. So far so good. But SLOF is a specific implementation of
> Open Firmware (of which we have a couple of other partial
> implementations used for other qemu platforms).
Thank you -- I will replace SLOF with "openfirmware".
This also implies I shouldn't add "openbios" separately, which was
suggested earlier by Gerd -- according to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBIOS>, OpenBIOS is another
implementation of OFW.
> U-Boot is somewhere in
> between the two, a specific implementation that defines a fair bunch of
> its own interfaces.
Right, this is about interfaces, so I'll keep "uboot".
Thank you!
Laszlo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
