From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LDLil-0000o7-EA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:27:31 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LDLik-0000nX-8j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:27:30 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43629 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LDLik-0000nG-2F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:27:30 -0500 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.144]:13998) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LDLij-0002hz-3Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:27:29 -0500 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so114946qwc.4 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:27:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <494A79EC.8000600@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:27:24 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] x86: Manage BIOS boot menu via command line References: <494A4A55.2090700@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <494A4A55.2090700@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > diff --git a/pc-bios/bios-pq/0006_optional-boot-menu.patch b/pc-bios/bios-pq/0006_optional-boot-menu.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..bbe5753 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/pc-bios/bios-pq/0006_optional-boot-menu.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ > +Make interactive boot menu optional. > + > +Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka > + > +diff --git a/bios/rombios.c b/bios/rombios.c > +index 123672f..7ce5b6c 100644 > +--- a/bios/rombios.c > ++++ b/bios/rombios.c > +@@ -2026,6 +2026,10 @@ interactive_bootkey() > + Bit16u ss = get_SS(); > + Bit16u valid_choice = 0; > + > ++ /* QEMU sets CMOS byte 0x60 to non-zero if the boot menu should be skipped */ > ++ if (inb_cmos(0x60)) > ++ return; > ++ > Should we be using firmware config for this? I think I'd still like to see BIOS patches submitted as separate patches. We'll take care of updating the series file and sticking them into the right place. Diffs of diffs are pretty hard for me to read :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori