Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:09:19PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
>>
>>That said, I think SeaBIOS should autodetect any values where that's
>>feasible. So, for example, if the cpu identific
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:09:19PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> >>
> >>That said, I think SeaBIOS should autodetect any values where that's
> >>feasible. So, for example, if the cpu identification is avai
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
That said, I think SeaBIOS should autodetect any values where that's
feasible. So, for example, if the cpu identification is available via
cpuid, then I think that should be used. However, for example, if cpu
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:41:47PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:53:00PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > However, I'm not really sure how the above overlaps with your SVVP
> > patch..
> >
> It is not. I am just thinking about putting real info there instead of
> "not sup
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:53:00PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:59:01PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:30:41PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:59:01PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:30:41PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> > > > Ok - sounds good if bios
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:30:41PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> > > Ok - sounds good if bios_characteristics gets proper system based values.
> > >
> > Kevin can
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:30:41PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> > Ok - sounds good if bios_characteristics gets proper system based values.
> >
> Kevin can you help here. I can send a patch, but I am not sure I know
> everything
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:08:30PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > -memcpy((char *)start, "CPU " "\0" "" "\0" "", 7);
> > > - ((char *)start)[4] = cpu_number + '0';
> > > +memcpy((char *)start, "CPU \0QEMU\0\0", 12);
> > > +((char *)start)[4] = cpu_number + '0';
> >
> > BTW, snprint
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:39:52PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> > What about using the vendor provided by CPUID, so it displays the correct
> > value on coreboot and others, and
> > change qemu cpus to a different vendor string l
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> What about using the vendor provided by CPUID, so it displays the correct
> value on coreboot and others, and
> change qemu cpus to a different vendor string like padded QEMU or something.
> Currently qemu64 uses AMD,
> kvm64 an
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:41:26PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
>>Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:41:26PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> >>Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:41:26PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
>>Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:57:14AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 22.11.2009 18:39, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
>>> Is the requirement for "Targeted Content Delivery" specified
>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> >>Are the BIOS characteristics extension bytes valid if BIOS characteristics
> >>is not supported?
> >I have no idea. SVVP test complains though.
>
> p->bios_characteristics[0] = 0x08; /* BIOS characteristics not supported */
>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:07:50PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
> > arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain values otherwise it fails.
> > We all want to make Microso
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:41:26PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> >>Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >Microsoft S
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:57:14AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 22.11.2009 18:39, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> > Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> >>> Is the requirement for "Targeted Content Delivery" specified
> >>> somewhere
On 22.11.2009 18:39, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
>>> Is the requirement for "Targeted Content Delivery" specified
>>> somewhere with something more
>>> clear than "SMBIOS data is useful in identifying the compu
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
>>Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
>>>arbitrary SMBIOS field to h
On 11/22/2009 7:39 PM, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
>/* Type 16 -- Physical Memory Array */
>@@ -239,7 +240,7 @@ smbios_init_type_16(void *start, u32
memory_size_mb, int nr_mem_devs)
>
>p->location = 0x01; /* other */
>p->use = 0x03; /* system memory */
>-p->error_correction = 0x01;
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:39:16PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> >>Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
> >>>arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain v
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
>arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain values otherwise it fails.
>We all want to make Microsoft happy don't we? So lets
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 05:51:41PM +0100, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
> >arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain values otherwise it fails.
> >We all want to make Microsoft happy don't we? So lets put values MS
>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
> arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain values otherwise it fails.
> We all want to make Microsoft happy don't we? So lets put values MS
> expects in there.
[...]
> -
Gleb Natapov wrote:
Microsoft SVVP (Server Virtualization Validation Program) expects
arbitrary SMBIOS field to have certain values otherwise it fails.
We all want to make Microsoft happy don't we? So lets put values MS
expects in there.
Values modified by the patch:
Type 0:
Bit 2 of byte 2 mus
27 matches
Mail list logo
