> > [ just back from vacation ] > > > > Well, assuming the first namespace is the one you want actually boot > > from. Which I expect is the common case, but who knows how people > > use their machines ... > > > > IIRC there is some work in progress to add bootorder support for > > namespaces, where do we stand with that? > > IIUC I got the go-ahead to implement this in QEMU, so let's see how that > goes. Then we can look at the SeaBIOS patch I suppose. > > > Once we have this we should be > > able to extend the skip_nonbootable logic to handle not only controllers > > but also namespaces. With that we should be able to initialize the > > correct boot namespaces instead of picking the first namespace. > > I would expect that selecting a particular namespace (which will be enabled > by the QEMU patch) will be optional. Therefore, we might still have to figure > out from which namespace to boot from, so we'll be in the same situation as > we are now (an NVMe controller with lots of namespaces). So, I think the > patch I propose is still useful?
Yes, when bootorder doesn't specify one (or more) specific namespace(s) picking the first is fine. The patch seems to do some unneeded / unrelated changes though. Why do you move the boot_add() call? Why the desc changes? Why return the namespace? Just returning a int or bool telling whenever the namespace is active or not should be enough, no? take care, Gerd _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list -- seabios@seabios.org To unsubscribe send an email to seabios-le...@seabios.org
