From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Akio Takebe Subject: Re: [Patch][RFC] BIOS: configure bootable pass-through device Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:10:01 +0900 Message-ID: <49B8ED89.50802@jp.fujitsu.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 12/03/2009 10:11, "Akio Takebe" wrote: > >> These patches use cmos(0x60) as a place retaining the devfn of bootable >> device. >> Bochs BIOS doesn't seems to use the offset 0x60. >> What do you think of using cmos(0x60)? >> Do you have some ideas? > > This shouldn't need to touch qemu at all. This is a config option that > should be parsed by xm/xend and passed directly off to hvmloader. Passing it > via hvm_info_table would make most sense in my opinion. In which case you > need to probably pass it as an optional param to xc.hvm_build() and poke it > into hvm_info_table from that Python C wrapper function. > Thank you very much. It looks good. I'll try it. > If not specified, should you keep default behaviour and try to load all > option ROMs? I'm not fussed - it's just a thought. It depends on bios implimentation, I think. BIOS on one server box can select bootable device. BIOS on another box detects some device installed only paticular slots as bootable. There may be a BIOS loding all option ROM. With avobe your idea, I want to think a little bits more. I want to load option ROMs with a order like BCV priority. Best Regards, Akio Takebe