From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57646) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agDG8-0005k5-FJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:21:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agDG2-0006nh-Pq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:21:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]:35709) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agDG2-0006nc-FA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:21:10 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id n5so78937889pfn.2 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:21:10 -0700 (PDT) References: <20160315085654-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1458025488.13231.20.camel@redhat.com> <20160315091411-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1458027249.13231.27.camel@redhat.com> <20160315093529-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1458031522.13231.39.camel@redhat.com> <20160315113016-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <56E80253.3080605@acm.org> <20160315144324-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <56E83A17.1010906@mvista.com> <20160315185844-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> From: Corey Minyard Message-ID: <56E979E3.8080806@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:21:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160315185844-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] Sort the fw_cfg file list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Gerd Hoffmann , Corey Minyard , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 03/15/2016 12:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:36:39AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote: > >> I've hit a bit of a snag here. For 0.11 and before, PCI option ROMs >> were loaded via fw_cfg, not in the PCI ROM BAR. This causes two >> issues: >> >> * The order depends on the device initialization order, >> which I'm not sure is quantifiable. I believe it depends on >> how they are listed on the command line. >> >> * Users can load their own romfile with their own name, which >> means it can't be in the list. >> >> Also, for the ISA VGA ROMs, their order will also depend on the >> device list order. >> >> Outside of that, I have an order of file names. >> >> I think if I treat the device ROMs separately and handle them >> in init order, and then stick that device list in the proper location, >> that will work. Does that sound reasonable? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -corey > I think so. By the time this becomes an issue we might decide to > disable migration from 0.11 > One more thing here. I've realized that this is used for non-x86, too, and I'm wondering how much those matter. It's going to be really hard to figure out an order for these, as different boards/arches use the same names and install them in different orders. For legacy mode, can I just put them in order for non-x86? Is there an easy way to detect that you are running x86? -corey