On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:57:10AM -0700, Jordan Justen wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05/30/13 18:20, Jordan Justen wrote: > >> I think ACPI table generation lives in firmware on real products, > >> because on real products the firmware is the point that best > >> understands the actual hardware layout for the machine. In qemu, I > >> would say that qemu best knows the hardware layout, given that the > >> firmware is generally a slightly separate project from qemu. > >> > >> I don't think adding a coreboot layer into the picture helps, if it > >> brings along the coreboot payload boot interface as a requirement. > >> > >> Then again, I don't really understand how firmware could be swapped > >> out in this case. What would -bios do? How would the coreboot ACPI > >> shim layer be specified to qemu? > > > > I guess -bios would load coreboot. Coreboot would siphon the data > > necessary for ACPI table building through the current (same) fw_cfg > > bottleneck, build the tables, load the boot firmware (SeaBIOS or OVMF or > > something else -- not sure how to configure that), and pass down the > > tables to the firmware (through a now unspecified interface -- perhaps > > the tables could even be installed at this point). This could introduce > > another interface (fw_cfg+something rather than just fw_cfg), but ACPI > > table preparation would be concentrated in one project. > > > > I guess. > > For reference, I believe that both Xen and virtualbox build ACPI table > in the VMM rather than firmware. They both dump the tables into the > 0xe000 segment (yuck) where firmware finds and publishes it to the OS. > I think fw-cfg would be a reasonable alternative to this for > communicating the tables. > > -Jordan Want to review/ack the patches I sent? That's exactly what they do. -- MST -- 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