* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > On 19/11/2014 15:26, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 19/11/2014 15:13, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >>> Since we've wondered off the actual ACPI table stuff into general > >>> ROM sizing, I'd like to propose some concrete fixes: > >>> > >>> 1) We explicitly name the bios file in a .romfile attribute for > >>> all ROMs. > >>> 2) The code that uses .romfile has an expansion for $MACHINETYPE > >>> 3) We actually symlink all of those together, anyone who wants/has > >>> to deal with different versions can downstream. > >>> 4) The machine types contain size attributes for the ROMs that > >>> are generoously larger than the ROMs anyone currently uses. > >>> > >>> I think 1..3 should deal with those of us who have to deal with different > >>> ROM versions on different machine types. > >> > >> It should, but it's a solution in search of a problem. > > > > Well we already do something close to 1 & 2 downstream but more ad-hoc; > > it's just a generalisation (and 4 from padding the size of our images). > > So we already had that problem. > > Upstream too. See pxe-* vs. efi-* NIC option ROMs. The latter includes > both PXE firmware for BIOS and EFI drivers. We keep two copies because > they have different sizes. Having explicit expansions for $MACHINETYPE > would be hugely overkill, in my opinion.
Yes it is, but it's simple and feels easy to understand. Dave > > Paolo > > >> > >>> 4 might be good enough for the ACPI tables if you can bound it. > >> > >> Already doing that (rounding to 128k, warning if >64k), but it is not a > >> definitive solution. > >> > >> We also do (4) for ROMs, since VGA BIOSes use only 36k out of 64k and > >> iPXE ROMs use only ~200k out of 256k. > >> > >> Paolo > > -- > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK > > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK