From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52387 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PAPpt-00020H-05
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:23:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1PAPpo-0006gP-De
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:23:48 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:63739)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1PAPpo-0006fM-2h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:23:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4CC5AEFC.3080106@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:23:24 +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>	<4CB8C196.8030403@mail.berlios.de>
	<m3vd4q1ngf.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3vd4q1ngf.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, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

Am 25.10.2010 14:11, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> writes:
>
>> Am 13.10.2010 09:13, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>>> Stefan Weil<weil@mail.berlios.de> writes:
> [...]
>>>> 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?
>
> If the gain for "-device i82801" is worth the risk, which depends on the
> patch. Have we reached consensus on how to fix it in master?


The latest patch version fixes rom data only for the default
roms, so the risk is minimized and full tests are possible.

There is still no consensus whether we need a new qdev property
(which allows users to have their rom data fixed, too) or not.

My patch does not prevent adding that new qdev property,
so I suggest applying my patch now and adding the property
later (if it is ever needed).

Regards
Stefan