From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4D0C43613 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:20:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37C2D2084A for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:20:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 37C2D2084A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:44762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdsJC-0003i1-En for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:20:38 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57563) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdsFw-0001oZ-6V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:17:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdsFF-0002CZ-Oc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:16:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50636) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdsFF-00025y-ER; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 04:16:33 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1D6307D935; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:16:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kinshicho (unknown [10.43.2.73]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8393E60FAB; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:16:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <11f4e4ff6037427f52824ba586f8a330c12d8dfd.camel@redhat.com> From: Andrea Bolognani To: Alistair Francis , Bin Meng Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:16:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.2 (3.32.2-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:16:20 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-riscv] [RFC v1 0/5] RISC-V: Add firmware loading support and default X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Alistair Francis , Palmer Dabbelt , "open list:RISC-V" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 11:23 -0700, Alistair Francis wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:42 AM Bin Meng wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:30 PM Alistair Francis wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:26 AM Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > pc-bios/opensbi-riscv32-fw_jump.elf | Bin 0 -> 197988 bytes > > > > > pc-bios/opensbi-riscv64-fw_jump.elf | Bin 0 -> 200192 bytes > > > > > > > > Since we are considering adding "bios" images, I prefer to add the > > > > pure binary images instead of ELF images here. > > > > > > I didn't think about that. Can we just boot them in QEMU like we do > > > with the ELFs? > > > > Yes, use load_image_targphys() instead of load_elf(). > > Ah, that is obvious. I'll update it to use the bin files then. I'm unclear on the advantages of using one format over the other, but one question comes to mind: once this is in, we will probably want to have OpenSBI packaged separately in distributions, the same way it already happens for SeaBIOS, SLOF and edk2-based firmwares. Will using either of the formats prevent that from happening? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization