From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iqbpw-0006Y1-SJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:56:24 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iqbpu-0006VQ-Cq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:56:23 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iqbpu-0006VI-8t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:56:22 -0500 Received: from bangui.magic.fr ([195.154.194.245]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iqbpt-0005Ug-LO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:56:22 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (ppp-36.net-123.static.magiconline.fr [80.118.184.36]) by bangui.magic.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA9LuE3k015637 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:56:14 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Qemu-devel] multiple boot devices] From: "J. Mayer" Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:56:18 +0100 Message-Id: <1194645378.21588.46.camel@rapid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org What about this patch ? Is there any remark ? Is it to be applied ? -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: J. Mayer > Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] multiple boot devices > Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:04:40 +0100 > > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:18 +0000, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > J. Mayer wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > It restricts the letter to the ones historically allowed by Qemu, not to > > > > > anything specific to any architecture or hw platform. What I like in my > > > > > implementation, compared to the strchr..., is that it exactly tells the > > > > > user which given device is incorrect. > > > > > > > > Well, here it makes no difference, strchr tells you exactly same as much. > > > > > > Yes, you're right. Was thinking about the original strspn. > > > > > > > Instead of the check, the code could also allow everything from 'a' to > > > > 'z' and then just AND the produced 32bit bitmap with a machine defined > > > > bitmap that would be part of QEMUMachine. > > > > > > I guess we would better stop at 'n', because we can easily define a > > > semantic for devices 'c' to 'm' (ie hard disk drives in a hardware > > > platform specific order) but we have to define what means 'o' to 'z'. > > > But I agree we would better extend it now, instead of having to rework > > > it later... > > > > To select the network device to boot from would probably become a > > 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' series. > > > > [snip] > > > > > Here's a second pass cleanup, adding the machine dependant checks for > > > > > the PC machine and the PowerPC ones. As one can see, the OpenHack'Ware > > > > > firmware is able to boot from devices 'e' and 'f'. For the PowerPC > > > > > machines, I choosed to try to boot from the first given usable device, > > > > > some may not agree with this choice. It can be noticed that the > > > > > available boot devices are not the same for PowerPC PreP, g3bw and mac99 > > > > > machines. > > > > > As I don't know the features and requirements for the other > > > > > architectures, I prefered not to add any check for those ones. > > > > > > > > Most other machines ignore -boot and those that don't, shouldn't break > > > > from the introduced change, so please commit it when you feel ok with > > > > it. > > > > > > I'd like to know what are the feelings around about this patch and if > > > there are specific requirements and/or problems for some platforms to be > > > addressed before... > > > > I think the proposed scheme (and the implementation) is flexible enough > > to accomodate all relevant platforms. > > Here's an updated patch that address the remark about network boot > devices. > -- J. Mayer Never organized