From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NKeoV-00039Z-GF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:20:11 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NKeoR-00038X-1F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:20:11 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58087 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKeoQ-00038U-RD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:20:06 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63627) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NKeoQ-0002Sm-JV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:20:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:17:15 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: Proper support for PCI-based option rom loading (was Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qdev property bug?) Message-ID: <20091215211715.GF26712@redhat.com> References: <20091214202019.GF6150@redhat.com> <4B26A0DE.5000304@redhat.com> <20091214203428.GI6150@redhat.com> <20091214203603.GJ6150@redhat.com> <4B26A3B2.2030006@codemonkey.ws> <20091214205141.GC6398@redhat.com> <4B26F678.4010603@codemonkey.ws> <4B27541F.9020603@redhat.com> <4B276197.1080606@redhat.com> <4B27E518.7060300@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B27E518.7060300@codemonkey.ws> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: glommer@redhat.com, seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , Kevin O'Connor , Gerd Hoffmann , Sebastian Herbszt On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 01:35:52PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> -kernel didn't work on a quick test. > > Thinking about how to fix this, we have two options. Hmm, can you pls explain why it stops working? > The first would be > to use the support in SeaBIOS for static roms but that would limit us to > two user supplied option roms (including kernel/multiboot/extboot). We > could extend this to more than two roms but I think that's generally > ugly. > > Alternatively, we could introduce a special rom-only PCI device. > Besides getting support for a much greater number of option roms, it > also gives us a much nicer way to integrate multiboot/linux boot support > via qdev (instead of the ugly machine hack we have now). > > We could make them multifunction devices so that we don't unnecessarily > burn PCI slots to support roms. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori >> cheers, >> Gerd Will be a problem for non-PCI systems? -- MST