From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54932 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P5P7B-0002UT-5O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:36:57 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1P5P7A-0001G3-5C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:36:57 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56945)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1P5P79-0001Fx-VR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:36:56 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:36:53 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [SeaBIOS] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Passing boot order from qemu to
	seabios
Message-ID: <20101011203653.GC5218@redhat.com>
References: <20101011101855.GA25030@redhat.com> <4CB2E7D0.1010702@redhat.com>
	<4CB2FDF2.1020705@redhat.com> <20101011121634.GB28008@redhat.com>
	<4CB36A20.5020106@codemonkey.ws> <20101011195955.GA5218@redhat.com>
	<4CB373DD.50307@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CB373DD.50307@codemonkey.ws>
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, seabios@seabios.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 02:59 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >No boot rom should do that. extboot wreaks havoc when it is used.
> >And since virtio is now supported by bios there is no reason to use it.
> 
> You don't really have a choice.  You could be doing hardware
> passthrough and the ROM on the card may hijack int19.
> 
Then this particular HW would be broken on real HW too and will not
respect BIOS settings. But the code we provide should work properly.

> >Whoever needs scsi boot should add it to seabios too.
> 
> I don't disagree.
> 
> I think the best thing to do is to let SeaBIOS create a boot order
> table that contains descriptive information and then advertise that
> to QEMU.
> 
What for? Why this step is needed?

> QEMU can then try to associate the list of bootable devices with
> it's own set of devices and select a preferred order that it can
> then give back to SeaBIOS.  SeaBIOS can then present that list to
> the user for additional refinement.
> 
Why not skip your first step and let QEMU create boot order list and
pass it into Seabios. If menu=on option is present user will be able to
override the default from Seabios.

--
			Gleb.