On 01/28/19 15:58, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:56, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Regarding OVMF, I kept the flash driver intentionally in the dark about >> split vs. unified pflash, so OVMF will not care, as long as the same >> GPAs behave the same as before. >> >> Regarding ArmVirtQemu, I'm not so sure. It think it already depends on >> two separate pflash chips, through the DTB that QEMU exposes. So >> unifying the chips (albeit with multiple regions) might actually confuse >> the firmware. > > "virt" is a funny case because there is no underlying hardware > that we're trying to match. So it is whatever we say it is > and we've said it's two separate pflash chips. We don't need > to change that I think. (IIRC this is derived partly from > OVMF usecase requirements and partly from the vexpress devboards > having 2 flash chips.) That sounds great, but in that case, would the work be justified in practice, to introduce single-ship-with-multiple-regions, if only x86 put it to use (for OVMF), but arm/aarch64 "virt" would have to stick with the current layout? Thanks Laszlo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
