On 08/03/2010 10:47 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/03/2010 02:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Why do we need to transfer roms? These are devices on the memory
bus or pci bus, it just needs to be there at the right address.
Not quite. The BIOS owns the option ROM space. The way it works on
bare metal is that the PCI ROM BAR gets mapped to some location in
physical memory by the BIOS, the BIOS executes the initialization
vector, and after initialization, the ROM will reorganize itself
into something smaller. It's nice and clean.
But ISA is not nearly as clean.
So far so good.
Ultimately, to make this mix work in a reasonable way, we have to
provide a side channel interface to SeaBIOS such that we can deliver
ROMs outside of PCI and still let SeaBIOS decide how ROMs get
organized.
I don't follow. Why do we need this side channel? What would a real
ISA machine do?
It depends on the ISA machine. In the worst case, there's a DIP
switch on the card and if you've got a conflict between two cards, you
start flipping DIP switches. It's pure awesomeness. No, I don't want
to emulate DIP switches :-)
How else do you set the IRQ line and I/O port base address?
static ISADeviceInfo ne2000_isa_info = {
.qdev.name = "ne2k_isa",
.qdev.size = sizeof(ISANE2000State),
.init = isa_ne2000_initfn,
.qdev.props = (Property[]) {
DEFINE_PROP_HEX32("iobase", ISANE2000State, iobase, 0x300),
DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("irq", ISANE2000State, isairq, 9),
+ DEFINE_PROP_HEX32("rombase", ISANE2000State, isarombase, 0xe8000),
DEFINE_NIC_PROPERTIES(ISANE2000State, ne2000.c),
DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
},
};
we already are emulating DIP switches...
Are there actually enough ISA devices for there to be a problem?
No, but -M older has the same problem.
So we do the same solution we did in older. We didn't have fwcfg dma
back then.
It's additionally complicated by the fact that we didn't support PCI
ROM BAR until recently so to maintain compatibility with -M older,
we have to use a side channel to lay out option roms.
Again I don't follow. We can just lay out the ROMs in memory like we
did in the past?
Because only one component can own the option ROM space. Either
that's SeaBIOS and we need a side channel or it's QEMU and we can't
use PMM.
I guess that's the real issue here. Previously we used etherboot
which was well under 32k. We only loaded roms we needed. Now we use
gPXE which is much bigger and if you don't use PMM, then you run out
of option rom space very quickly.
A true -M older would use the older ROMs for full compatibility.
Previously, we loaded option ROMs on demand when a user used -boot n
but that was a giant hack and wasn't like bare metal at all. It
involved x86-isms in vl.c. Now we always load ROMs so PMM is very
important.
Though it's a hack, we can load ROMs via the existing fwcfg interface;
no need for an extension. Richard is seeing problems loading 100MB
initrds, not 64KB ROMs.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
