From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB6F73180 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:45:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id r185so60504311ita.0 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:45:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PUAe3rfIHnBVy+F6sAFhcp4PIfNYx3lQ2Pm/dV/ZfAM=; b=zjQbUhdMkhQiFcbVyNsplEH7pzMtEXbJL4lTMfJRHw2krF+nCWCRd/QC3FEMjzm/Yn inyCOV+0nGqMbulWgUHO0sVbE9tkzLGQEnaJhNzheGvfvp6H2bIgGEOrAchBzCgPLHTx 9+FlUD4RH+b8HT5K24d5cMx0wmGeSHPMXMCZxBE1sOfFtkhrjSKYozAuYo1qZoMA9wpG HbrYC/ceE+zPvJg3Wsws9Gv4ueHzxPZIVk4e0yLl58Pm3e+JgptYfS2ZyAAkdl6ruLE9 GO7KZ6hUvN5UEn055FwVd2pxOrfr8dmtbfZQ+5tVmE6sKCT9HHG1LoGjh0ST0k09uuij fPyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PUAe3rfIHnBVy+F6sAFhcp4PIfNYx3lQ2Pm/dV/ZfAM=; b=nJ4jJT+wZn5x0ZG5MCL+mIOLhRPVq0umnxuEhjW9Lmp8urfy6U5og74Y/KEnDMNEco /NmJFUpAT0kymj4lViqCREaRX5fUDMoL+XMo4S13YSg6wtQiiZ8P53ULQoj9vQNcIAme Qyl74xRyefFrSrRSQdnQPeiANvMlREaGCfLIeH/ZySex/afdOCJGSyIEMrOhJ10W/7N3 +oUN19ka6jw0sk3DnbTSLD7NiVYB8nHIixEqsUjP3j3GTOtS6JXR+q5bDo3ms647SU0x iosN+FLt5tN6P96lBRiGF5LxQn9y4ci7XlkPkFOgAEdLjm9z9zELe+eKlNtUzH3rBOpb jQsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJIGn5ZAU/mDfaMcLKeIBzHlplkaYYx772AJXDx4CWxGIZEjbwnUN279py8rGY7ggGQ X-Received: by 10.36.112.146 with SMTP id f140mr13313140itc.51.1485157555698; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8FC12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.252.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z13sm9201709ioz.3.2017.01.22.23.45.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:45:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1485157551.20333.14.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Ricardo Neri Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:45:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1485156197.41148.8.camel@ranerica-desktop> References: <9d68428a1d2b7234a1a7ea6057e3b027e454db61.1484921498.git-series.patrick.ohly@intel.com> <1485156197.41148.8.camel@ranerica-desktop> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/12] ovmf: deploy firmware in image directory X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:45:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:23 -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 15:12 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > The traditional usage of ovmf via the qemu bios parameter is no longer > > supported > > I don't see dropping support for this option in this series. > > Is part of > another series? I just checked the poky repo and I still the the option > supported. Or do you mean that only the ovmf recipe will not support > exporting bios.bin? Yes, the latter. > > and therefore it is not necessary to create a "bios.bin" > > file in the target sysroot. > > Wouldn't this particular part of the patch break the existing runqemu. > If this is the case, perhaps the last patch (or a patch towards the end > of the series) can remove this functionality in both places. Could be done, but personally I prefer to add something new before taking away the old approach. This might not be applicable here (because there is no other bios), but it still "feels" safer. > On the other hand, this is a new recipe and this may not be super > critical. Especially if you meant that only OVMF will not support > installing bios.bin in sysroot. Maybe all is needed is some > clarification in the commit message. Care to suggest something? ;-) To me, "traditional usage of ovmf ... is no longer supported" already says that this is a statement about ovmf, not the bios parameter, so I'm not sure how to reword this. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.