From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: stappers@stappers.nl, "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] hw/block: report when pflash backing file isn't aligned
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:56:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36adf8c8-009e-dc91-475b-c3cbf34fbd21@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tvh4t1v7.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
On 02/16/19 12:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> writes:
>> On 02/15/19 17:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Using whatever size the image has is sloppy modelling.
>>
>> Maybe so, but it's also very convenient, and also quite important, right
>> now (given the multiple firmware image sizes used in the wild).
>>
>>> A machine may come in minor variations that aren't worth their own
>>> machine type. One such variation could be a different flash chip size.
>>> Using the image size to select one from the set of fixed sizes is
>>> tolerable.
>>
>> The problem is that this requires coordination between QEMU and firmware
>> development.
>>
>> (Well, I have to agree that the present patch is *already* that kind of
>> coordination;
>
> We've always had that kind of coordination. It just happens to be less
> tight in the case of PC firmware in flash than in most other cases.
>
>> my point is that when I introduced the 4MB build for OVMF,
>> I didn't have to touch QEMU. In retrospect, I'm extremely thankful for
>> that, as the introduction of the 4MB build was difficult in itself.)
>
> You don't actually need "flash size is whatever the image size is" for
> that. "Use image size to select one from the set of fixed sizes" should
> suffice.
>
> Actually, the PC machines currently comply, just with a rather large
> set: { n * 4KiB | 1 <= n <= 2048 }.
>
> I very much doubt PC firmware sizes other than powers of two between
> 64KiB and 8MiB matter. Have you ever seen real flash chips with sizes
> like 64140KiB?
Honestly, I wouldn't know. I haven't seen any physical flash chip (as
in, directing my gaze at it). I also don't know what the usual flash
chip sizes are on physical boards (e.g. I have no clue what my laptop uses).
I think a jump from 4MB to 8MB would be too large. It gives too much of
sudden convenience to firmware developers. I do agree "7MB" looks quite
lame. I really wonder about the flash sizes used on physical UEFI boards.
Thanks,
Laszlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-18 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-15 12:28 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] hw/block: report when pflash backing file isn't aligned Alex Bennée
2019-02-15 14:08 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-02-15 16:01 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-02-15 16:59 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-02-16 17:53 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-02-15 22:48 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-02-16 11:21 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-02-18 11:56 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2019-02-21 14:57 ` Alex Bennée
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=36adf8c8-009e-dc91-475b-c3cbf34fbd21@redhat.com \
--to=lersek@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stappers@stappers.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).