From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53819) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f8ldT-0001NJ-81 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:52:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f8ldQ-00054a-3K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:52:27 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:57338 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f8ldP-00054S-VB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:52:24 -0400 References: <20180417224054.26363-1-lersek@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <762b3dc8-a86f-a21f-1e21-334ec46677ef@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:52:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu RFC v2] qapi: add "firmware.json" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, libvir-list@redhat.com Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , Alexander Graf , Ard Biesheuvel , David Gibson , Eric Blake , Gary Ching-Pang Lin , Gerd Hoffmann , Kashyap Chamarthy , Markus Armbruster , Michael Roth , Michal Privoznik , Peter Krempa , Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth On 04/18/18 11:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 18/04/2018 00:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> +# >> +# Lists firmware types commonly used with QEMU virtual machines. >> +# >> +# @bios: The firmware was built from the SeaBIOS project. >> +# >> +# @slof: The firmware was built from the Slimline Open Firmware project. >> +# >> +# @uboot: The firmware was built from the U-Boot project. >> +# >> +# @uefi: The firmware was built from the edk2 (EFI Development Kit II) project. >> +# >> +# Since: 2.13 >> +## >> +{ 'enum' : 'FirmwareType', >> + 'data' : [ 'bios', 'slof', 'uboot', 'uefi' ] } > > A very basic question (so not likely a suggestion for change). Why > wouldn't these be features too? For example a UEFI with CSM could > expose both uefi and bios, a u-boot with UEFI support could expose both > uboot and uefi, etc. Good point. I considered "type" to be a given, from the initial brainstorming, but if Dan is OK with your suggestion, I can turn these into features as well. > Perhaps there are two dimensions, the FirmwareType tells you how to > configure it and the FirmwareFeature tells you the APIs it exposes to > the guest? I don't know enough firmware types to answer this :) I believe I agree about the FirmwareFeature statement (if we also include "platform requirements" there), but I have no clue about any generalizations for firmware configuration. Thanks, Laszlo