Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Defining firmware (OVMF, et al) metadata format & file

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 03/09/18 12:27, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:47:27PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/08/18 16:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:10:30PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> For OVMF (x86), I guess the initial set of properties should come from
>>>> the "-D FOO[=BAR]" build flags that OVMF currently supports. (The list
>>>> might grow or change incompatibly over time, so this is just a raw
>>>> starter idea.)
>>>
>>> I really don't want to see us using firmware implementation specific
>>> property names in these files. It means libvirt will require knowledge
>>> of what each different firmware's property names mean.
>>>
>>> We need to have some core standardized set of property names that can
>>> be provided by any firmware implementation using the same terminology.
>>>
>>> If we want to /also/ provide some extra firmeware-specific property
>>> names that would be ok for informative purposes, but when lbivirt is
>>> picking which firmware file to use, it would only ever look at the
>>> standardized property names/values.
>>
>> This is a reasonable requirement from the libvirt side.
>>
>> Unfortunately (or not), it requires someone (or a tight group of people)
>> to collect the features of all virtual firmwares in existence, and
>> extract a common set of properties that maps back to each firmware one
>> way or another. 
> 
> Hmm, if people consider the above worthwhile (no clue how much time &
> investigation it takes to arrive at a common set of properties) maybe
> slowly we should start collecting such a page?  From a quick look up,
> list of open source firmware implementations I found so (besides OVMF &
> ArmVirt):
> 
>   - OpenBIOS
>   - SmartFirmware
>   - OpenBoot
>   - CoreBoot
>   - U-Boot
>   - SLOF
>   - ...
> 
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBIOS
> 
> I notice you said "virtual firmwares".  I couldn't find such a list from
> my look up.
> 
> Hmm, I also wonder if the "arriving at a common set of properties across
> existing virtual firmwares" is an absolute blocker.

That's for Daniel to decide. I can't sensibly generalize from OVMF &
ArmVirt to other firmwares, without knowing them.

Thanks
Laszlo

> 
>> This is not unusual (basically this is how all standards
>> bodies work that intend to codify existing practice), it just needs a
>> bunch of work and coordination. We'll have to maintain a registry.
>>
>> Personally I can't comment on anything else than OVMF and the ArmVirt
>> firmwares.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Laszlo
>