From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32932 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOnQl-00056u-Gz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:53:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OOnQk-0006oY-6x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:53:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49429)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OOnQk-0006oR-03
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:53:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:52:59 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100616075259.GA21797@redhat.com>
References: <4C18015C.1070306@web.de> <20100616044047.GF13238@redhat.com>
	<4C187725.2000902@web.de> <20100616073318.GZ21797@redhat.com>
	<4C188272.9010201@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C188272.9010201@web.de>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] hpet: Clean up initial hpet counter
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no need starting with the special value for hpet_cfg.count.
> >>>> Either Seabios is aware of the new firmware interface and properly
> >>>> interprets the counter or it simply ignores it anyway.
> >>>>
> >>> I want seabios to be able to distinguish between old qemu and new one.
> >> I see now. But isn't it a good chance to introduce a proper generic
> >> interface for exploring supported fw-cfg keys?
> >>
> > Having such interface would be nice. Pity we haven't introduced it from
> > the start. If we do it now seabios will have to find out somehow that
> > qemu support such interface. Chicken and egg ;)
> 
> That is easy: Add a key the describes the highest supported key value
> (looks like this is monotonously increasing). Older qemu versions will
> return 0.
> 
That will not support holes in key space, and our key space is already
sparse.

--
			Gleb.