Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> --- >> 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,file=@executable.@filename,format=@executable.@format". >> +# definitions. The preferred corresponding QEMU command >> +# line option is >> +# -drive >> if=none,id=pflash0,readonly=on,file=@executable.@filename,format=@executable.@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!
