[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu RFC] qapi: add "firmware.json"

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu RFC] qapi: add "firmware.json"
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:09:05 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

On 04/10/18 08:18, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
>>> uboot for example implements uefi unterfaces too (dunno how complete,
>>> but reportly recent versions can run uefi shell and grub just fine).
>> Indeed: when I was struggling with this enum type and tried to look for
>> more firmware types to add, my googling turned up the "UEFI on Top of
>> U-Boot" whitepaper, from Alex and Andreas :)
> In case you wanna play: uboot supports x86 qemu meanwhile, so you can
> try install u-boot.git-x86 from my firmware repo, then run
> "qemu-system-x86_64 -bios /usr/share/u-boot.git/x86/qemu-pc/u-boot.rom".
> It certainly isn't a useful edk2 replacement atm.  It has no virtio
> drivers.  And even when using ide storage its not like it would happily
> boot a fedora live iso.  So I certainly wouldn't tag that as uefi today.
> That might change at some point in the future though.
>> Again, this reaches to the root of the problem: when a user creates a
>> new domain, using high-level tools, they just want to tick "UEFI". (Dan
>> has emphasized this to me several times, so I think I get the idea by
>> now, if not the full environment.) We cannot ask the user, "please be
>> more specific, do you want UEFI from edk2, or UEFI on top of U-Boot?"
> Well, in case the uefi support in u-boot is good enough some day then it
> doesn't matter to the user whenever uboot or edk2 boots the efi guest
> from disk/iso, right?

I believe that's correct.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]