Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 12/12] docs/interop/firmware.json: Prefer -machine to if=pflash

[Markus Armbruster]

Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> writes:

> On 03/07/19 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> The previous commit added a way to configure firmware with -blockdev
>> rather than -drive if=pflash.  Document it as the preferred way.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  docs/interop/firmware.json | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/docs/interop/firmware.json b/docs/interop/firmware.json
>> index 28f9bc1591..db3cb38b6a 100644
>> --- a/docs/interop/firmware.json
>> +++ b/docs/interop/firmware.json
>> @@ -212,9 +212,13 @@
>>  #
>>  # @executable: Identifies the firmware executable. The firmware
>>  #              executable may be shared by multiple virtual machine
>> -#              definitions. The corresponding QEMU command line option
>> -#              is "-drive
>> -#              
>> if=pflash,unit=0,readonly=on,address@hidden@filename,address@hidden@format".
>> +#              definitions. The preferred corresponding QEMU command
>> +#              line option is
>> +#                  -drive 
>> if=none,id=pflash0,readonly=on,address@hidden@filename,address@hidden@format
>> +#                  -machine pflash0=pflash0
>> +#              or equivalent -blockdev.
>
> If we used plural here ("options"), would that be an improvement?
>
>   The preferred corresponding QEMU command line options are
>     -drive ...
>     -machine ...
>   (or -blockdev equivalent to -drive).

Definitely an improvement.

>> +#              With QEMU versions older than 4.0, you have to use
>
> To make this easier to understand on first read, should we say
>
>   ... you have to use the single option ...
>
> ?
>
> (Maybe there is a better term than "single option" for the "-drive 
> if=<not-NONE>" options, i.e. for those that configure both back-end and 
> front-end.)

I think we can leave this one to context.

> If the above over-explained things, I'd be fine with the current patch as 
> well. I just got these ideas and wanted to run them by you.

Appreciated!