From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NjvKA-0007iN-Ck for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:01:18 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43072 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NjvK9-0007hr-Vq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:01:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NjvK8-0000tp-D3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:01:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62542) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NjvK7-0000tf-Tt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:01:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:01:08 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] QEMU e820 reservation patch Message-ID: <20100223140108.GM29041@redhat.com> References: <4B79857A.1030808@redhat.com> <4B7EFC74.10209@codemonkey.ws> <4B817117.1020700@redhat.com> <20100221191351.GA30303@morn.localdomain> <20100222083312.GQ14767@redhat.com> <20100223013100.GA30352@morn.localdomain> <20100223082205.GB29041@redhat.com> <4B83DD18.7060808@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B83DD18.7060808@codemonkey.ws> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin O'Connor , QEMU Developers On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 07:50:16AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/23/2010 02:22 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:31:00PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > >>On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:33:12AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>>On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 02:13:51PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > >>>>Are you thinking of moving qemu more torwards what coreboot does, or > >>>>did you have a different idea in mind? > >>>> > >>>We shouldn't compare coreboot with qemu. Qemu is a hardware. Coreboot > >>>is part of a firmware. > >>Coreboot and qemu often face the same problems when trying to pass > >>information into the BIOS. I think it helps to look at how others > >>have solved similar problems. > >> > >Since qemu is a HW and coreboot is one part of firmware stack the > >information they are passing to Seabios is often fundamentally different. > >It is OK for coreboot to create ACPI/SMBIOS/E820 tables and pass them to > >Seabios, but it is not OK if qemu does that. > > Actually, we do passthrough ACPI tables (you wrote that ;-)) and we I remember :) It allows to pass additional tables, not overwrite tables that Seabios creates. > build SMBIOS tables and pass them through to Seabios. > I freely admit those are hacks :( And smbios one allows to much control IMHO. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > Information that QEMU pass > >to Seabios can be divided into two types. First one can be classified > >as board description. It is needed so Seabios would be able to support > >more then one qemu configuration without recompile. Second is "bios > >configuration" (boot priority, show bunner, etc). I don't know who > >manages this information on coreboot + Seabios combo, but I think it > >should be Seabios, so this kind of info should not be passed between > >coreboot an Seabios at all. > > > >-- > > Gleb. > > > > -- Gleb.