Avi wrote:
> Surely, the BIOS call interface is a GPL boundary, just like the Linux
> syscall interface. Kevin, is that not the case? If it is a GPL
> interface, can you add an explicit exception to make it clear?
At IBM we had many discussions about what precisely constitutes a GPL
boundary. Especially when you are examining internal BIOS data structures
(which most kernels do when accessing the BIOS). In the end Legal advised us
that LGPL was ok and GPL was not. This was all in the context of v2 so
things may have changed with v3.
I don't want this to turn into a GPL versus LGPL argument because I'm not a
lawyer either. If the KVM project picks up SEABIOS I'm all for it because it
is much cleaner and easier to maintain.
>> Ensuring
>> the same mappings was much cleaner.
> With a switch, please. Default behaviour should be to virtualize.
>
> One way to implement it is to pass pci devfn -> BAR hints through the
> firmware interface. This way you can choose which BARs to place where,
> and where to allow the default placement.
I'm already providing the hints, but you are proposing that the default
behavior for the BIOS should be to allocate BARs and when given a flag it
should try to preserve the host BAR mappings. I can do that.
>> Of course, my goal is to run unmodified BIOS/drivers. You could always
>> change the drivers.
>
> Not Windows drivers.
Well, at least I have a fighting chance to change the ATI windows drivers
:-)
Leendert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
