Il 10/06/2014 18:38, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
On 10 June 2014 17:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
Il 10/06/2014 18:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
+ create_one_flash("virt.flash0", flashbase, flashsize);
+ create_one_flash("virt.flash1", flashbase + flashsize,
flashsize);
What happens if you specify both -bios and -drive if=pflash? Can you
check
that the user does not specify both?
We'll create the device and then overlay it with the "ROM"
image, same as for vexpress. (If the bios image is short
then the underlying pflash contents will be visible.)
Could you provide slightly saner semantics for -M virt? :)
Heh. How about:
* if both bios_name and pflash drive 0 specified, this is an error
* otherwise use whichever we have
* (NB that bios_name + pflash drive 1 is a reasonable combination)
Yes, it is.
vexpress should do this too, for consistency.
If it's okay for you, why not.
Paolo
(Actually ideally I'd just make bios_name be a convenient
shortcut for specifying a block backend for pflash that's
readonly and permits undersized backing files, but I don't
think we can easily do that right now.)
thanks
-- PMM
