From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Njv9a-00051A-FT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:50:22 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47432 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Njv9Z-000512-5Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:50:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Njv9X-0007kq-Gp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:50:20 -0500 Received: from mail-yx0-f204.google.com ([209.85.210.204]:37535) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Njv9X-0007ki-6w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:50:19 -0500 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42so298274yxe.4 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:50:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B83DD18.7060808@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:50:16 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] QEMU e820 reservation patch References: <4B79857A.1030808@redhat.com> <4B7EFC74.10209@codemonkey.ws> <4B817117.1020700@redhat.com> <20100221191351.GA30303@morn.localdomain> <20100222083312.GQ14767@redhat.com> <20100223013100.GA30352@morn.localdomain> <20100223082205.GB29041@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100223082205.GB29041@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Kevin O'Connor , QEMU Developers On 02/23/2010 02:22 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:31:00PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:33:12AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 02:13:51PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote: >>> >>>> Are you thinking of moving qemu more torwards what coreboot does, or >>>> did you have a different idea in mind? >>>> >>>> >>> We shouldn't compare coreboot with qemu. Qemu is a hardware. Coreboot >>> is part of a firmware. >>> >> Coreboot and qemu often face the same problems when trying to pass >> information into the BIOS. I think it helps to look at how others >> have solved similar problems. >> >> > Since qemu is a HW and coreboot is one part of firmware stack the > information they are passing to Seabios is often fundamentally different. > It is OK for coreboot to create ACPI/SMBIOS/E820 tables and pass them to > Seabios, but it is not OK if qemu does that. Actually, we do passthrough ACPI tables (you wrote that ;-)) and we build SMBIOS tables and pass them through to Seabios. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Information that QEMU pass > to Seabios can be divided into two types. First one can be classified > as board description. It is needed so Seabios would be able to support > more then one qemu configuration without recompile. Second is "bios > configuration" (boot priority, show bunner, etc). I don't know who > manages this information on coreboot + Seabios combo, but I think it > should be Seabios, so this kind of info should not be passed between > coreboot an Seabios at all. > > -- > Gleb. > > >