From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mu9AB-0005Lr-9l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:16:59 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mu9A5-0005L6-Qe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:16:58 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35884 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mu9A5-0005Kq-LE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:16:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6943) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mu9A5-0000B1-8o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:16:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:16:31 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [coreboot] [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0 Message-ID: <20091003181631.GG17326@redhat.com> References: <4AC51DBA.7020609@codemonkey.ws> <2a50f7880910011741k65ac8dfbq2fc8c9f58f5fa8d9@mail.gmail.com> <4AC60037.6000001@codemonkey.ws> <2a50f7880910020958g3fe5eadehe5e5094c05b218d9@mail.gmail.com> <4AC64A5C.6010003@gmx.net> <4AC64C32.4020509@codemonkey.ws> <4AC67326.6080603@gmx.net> <20091003150803.GF17326@redhat.com> <20091003173252.1061.qmail@stuge.se> <13426df10910031040y5029dc31m8c6ca4a4bac098a6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13426df10910031040y5029dc31m8c6ca4a4bac098a6@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: ron minnich Cc: Anthony Liguori , Coreboot , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger , Jordan Justen On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 10:40:35AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > I use qemu for a lot of coreboot work. I really depend on qemu for > many things I do, not just coreboot related. The qemu target in > coreboot has been very heavily used by us to test out new ideas. > > That said, I don't see a compelling need to augment seabios with > coreboot on qemu *in the standard distribution*. If seabios gets the > job done, and gets OSes booted, I think that's sufficient. I don't see > a need to complicate anyone's life with something that is, after all, > a sideshow for qemu users. > Exactly. I am glad to hear that coreboot has support for QEMU, but seabios does the job already, so why add more layers? > Conversely, I don't see the need to add the huge pile of stuff that > comes with UEFI/OVMF/whatever to qemu either. One might argue that > having any BIOS callbacks in the OS is a huge mistake, and certainly > I've learned in practice that this argument is true. > > thanks > > ron -- Gleb.