On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:12, Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59:07AM -0800, Jordan Justen wrote: >> Yes, this definitely could add firmware upgrade issues, but I thought >> this could be the responsibility of the firmware itself. For example, >> OVMF could have an outside of VM tool to merge new releases, or it >> could have an inside of VM firmware update process. > Why require another tool if can do without? I don't see any advantages > in storing firmware code and its non-volatile storage in the same image, > but I do see disadvantages.
I agree. The implications of a firmware image getting out of sync with qemu were a bit of a concern to me. But, having both -bios + -flash just below -bios was starting to seem a bit complicated. And, I guess as a firmware developer, I thought it might be interesting to consider enabling a firmware update process within the VM. :) How about? 1) Pure rom: -bios bios.bin 2) Rom + flash below rom: -bios bios.bin,flash=flash.bin 3) Pure flash: -bios flash=flash.bin Or, with a separate new -flash option: 1) Pure rom: -bios bios.bin or no -bios or -flash parameters 2) Rom + flash below rom: -bios bios.bin -flash flash.bin 3) Pure flash: -flash flash.bin > It is not even about performance (which will be very bad for 1MB). KVM > can't run code from MMIO region, so the part that contains firmware > has to be memory. Hmm. That's good to know. :) So, perhaps this feature should build upon the other feature you and Jan are discussing. When will it become available? Thanks, -Jordan