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

[Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>]

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.

> 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

-- 
/kashyap