On 03/15/2016 12:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:36:39AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
I've hit a bit of a snag here. For 0.11 and before, PCI option ROMs
were loaded via fw_cfg, not in the PCI ROM BAR. This causes two
issues:
* The order depends on the device initi
On 16/03/2016 16:21, Corey Minyard wrote:
> One more thing here. I've realized that this is used for
> non-x86, too, and I'm wondering how much those matter.
> It's going to be really hard to figure out an order for these,
> as different boards/arches use the same names and install
> them in dif
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:21:07AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 12:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:36:39AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> >
> >>I've hit a bit of a snag here. For 0.11 and before, PCI option ROMs
> >>were loaded via fw_cfg, not in the PC
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:36:39AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 07:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:38:43AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> >>On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wro
On 03/15/2016 07:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:38:43AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Depends on how you code it up. We have a list, we look each file
th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:56:36AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 07:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:38:43AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> >>On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wro
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:56:36AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 07:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:38:43AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> >>On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wro
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 02:03:47PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > So here is what I propose instead:
> >
> > - always initialize it late
> > - sort late, a machine done, not when inserting entries
> > - figure out what the order of existing entries is currently,
> > and fill an array
Hi,
> So here is what I propose instead:
>
> - always initialize it late
> - sort late, a machine done, not when inserting entries
> - figure out what the order of existing entries is currently,
> and fill an array listing them in this order.
> for old machine types, insert the existing ent
On 03/15/2016 07:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:38:43AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Depends on how you code it up. We have a list, we look each file
th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:38:43AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>>Depends on how you code it up. We have a list, we look each file
> >>>there and sort accordingly. Fine.
> >>>Ne
On 03/15/2016 04:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Depends on how you code it up. We have a list, we look each file
there and sort accordingly. Fine.
New devices will not be on this list, I guess you can just ignore them
and guests
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:45:22AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Depends on how you code it up. We have a list, we look each file
> > there and sort accordingly. Fine.
> > New devices will not be on this list, I guess you can just ignore them
> > and guests will not see them. OK but I think it
> Depends on how you code it up. We have a list, we look each file
> there and sort accordingly. Fine.
> New devices will not be on this list, I guess you can just ignore them
> and guests will not see them. OK but I think it is better to make old
> machine types see them.
Not a new fw_cfg file.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Di, 2016-03-15 at 09:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:04:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > > Don't add a new machine type in this version, just use the 2.6 one.
> > > >
>
On Di, 2016-03-15 at 09:17 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:04:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > Don't add a new machine type in this version, just use the 2.6 one.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately this patch won't help any, as your next patch reorders f
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:04:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Don't add a new machine type in this version, just use the 2.6 one.
> >
> > Unfortunately this patch won't help any, as your next patch reorders fw
> > cfg files which will affect the old machine types.
>
> We can mak
Hi,
> > Don't add a new machine type in this version, just use the 2.6 one.
>
> Unfortunately this patch won't help any, as your next patch reorders fw
> cfg files which will affect the old machine types.
We can make that depend on dont_sort_fw_cfgs too, to keep things as-is
on old machine typ
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:55:31PM +0700, miny...@acm.org wrote:
> From: Gerd Hoffmann
>
> Entries are inserted at the correct place instead of being
> appended to the end in case sorting is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann
>
> Added a machine type handling for compatibility.
>
> Sig
From: Gerd Hoffmann
Entries are inserted at the correct place instead of being
appended to the end in case sorting is enabled.
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann
Added a machine type handling for compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard
---
Don't add a new machine type in this version, just us
20 matches
Mail list logo
