From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/07] HVM firmware passthrough Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 23:17:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20120501221756.GA69356@ocelot.phlegethon.org> References: <831D55AF5A11D64C9B4B43F59EEBF720724FB1BAA8@FTLPMAILBOX02.citrite.net> <20120320092412.GA3544@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <20120322112612.GG37468@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <4FA03DC8.6040204@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FA03DC8.6040204@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julian Pidancet Cc: Keir Fraser , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ross Philipson , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 20:47 +0100 on 01 May (1335905240), Julian Pidancet wrote: > I don't think ACPI and SMBIOS firmware passthrough are the only use > cases here. > > The module architecture could also be used to pass the BIOS and Option > ROMs to hvmloader. The toolstack could load them from dom0's filesystem > dynamically and pass them to hvmloader, instead of having them > compiled-in statically in hvmloader. AFAIK the BIOS can already load option ROMs from real or emulated hardware, the way a real BIOS does, and I think that's a good interface. Is loading a custom BIOS (as opposed to option ROM) something you actually want to do, BTW? > Would we still be able to do that with the simplifications you're > suggesting here ? Yes, you could definitely do it without all this module stuff. Passing an address and length in Xenstore would work. Tim.