From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57283 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Owg75-0001A7-Jy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:56:48 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <hpa@zytor.com>) id 1Owfzt-0002pK-LV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:49:22 -0400
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:39520 helo=mail.zytor.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <hpa@zytor.com>) id 1Owfzt-0002nd-Em
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:49:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4C93B821.1000209@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:49:05 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] add 40-48 bit RAM range to seabios
References: <20100915171528.GO5981@random.random>	<20100917014731.GA27371@morn.localdomain>	<4C9364B8.6030708@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20100917131130.GA15945@morn.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20100917131130.GA15945@morn.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

On 09/17/2010 06:11 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:53:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 09/16/2010 08:47 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>> This uses a new cmos port at 0x5e that shall read zero to be backwards
>>>> compatible.
>>> It looks okay to me.  Can you provide an Acked-by from one of the qemu
>>> or kvm maintainers?
>>
>> Is CMOS the best place to communicate this (as opposed to fw_cfg)?
>>
>> I know we currently expose memory size via CMOS but perhaps it's
>> better to switch to a 64-bit fw_cfg value.
> 
> I'd personally prefer fw_cfg.
> 
> Also, another possibility would be to stop sending an absolute max and
> to instead send a map of memory.  The latter would allow for
> non-contiguous memory.
> 

That would be highly useful for testing purposes.

	-hpa