From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47164 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P6rR1-0004XH-El
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:03:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1P6rQx-0001TN-3a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:03:24 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:62992)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1P6rQw-0001TB-OW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:03:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4CB8C196.8030403@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:03:18 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m3eibvmvmn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>	<4CB48A51.8040508@mail.berlios.de>
	<m3bp6y5zvu.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3bp6y5zvu.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Where's gpxe-eepro100-80862449.rom ?
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 13.10.2010 09:13, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de>  writes:
>
>    
>> Am 12.10.2010 14:41, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>>      
>>> Commit db667a12 added a reference to ROM file
>>> gpxe-eepro100-80862449.rom, but no such file. Intentional?
>>>        
>> Yes. See
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-05/msg00418.html
>>
>> Citation from my former mail:
>>
>>     Yes, it is missing. I did not add it for several reasons:
>>
>>     * The new variant i82801 (which needs the missing ROM) is currently
>>     not available
>>     via model=i82801 (it can be selected by experts using other methods).
>>      
> It's available via -device i82801.  -net nic,model= is obsolescent.
>
>    
>>     * Experts can get the missing ROM from ROM-o-matic.
>>
>>     * All three ROMs differ only in one or two bytes (device id). That's
>>     a waste
>>     of binary space (56832 bytes!). Therefore I plan to remove all but
>>     the first
>>     ROM file. The missing ones can be created by make or patched on the
>>     fly by
>>     QEMU during load. Maybe it is also possible to create ROM files
>>     which support
>>     more than one vendor/device entry - that would be the best solution.
>>      
> No objections to creating by make or on load, but I'd be just fine with
> the duplicated ROMs.  Disk space waste in the order of 100KiB is lost in
> the noise nowadays.  My qemu/.git is>100MiB, and my build tree for all
> targets ~1.5GiB.
>
>    
>> There is still nothing new regarding these last points
>> because I did not spend any time on them.
>>
>> Do you think there is urgent need for a gpxe-eepro100-80862449.rom binary?
>>      
> Well, "-device i82801" complains because it misses this binary.  Do we
> want to ship that way?
>    

I just sent two patches which create the rom data on load.
So -device i82801 no longer complains but gets the boot
information from dhcp (tested with i386-softmmu).

Your build tree will be made smaller by at least 50 KB :-)

Do you think these patches should be added to stable-0.13, too?

Regards,
Stefan