On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:51:16PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:37:40AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > +# @qemu-vars: The firmware expects qemu to provide an efi variable > > > > > +# store, via "uefi-vars-sysbus" or "uefi-vars-x64" > > > > > device. > > > > I wonder if 'qemu-vars' is the right name here ? It feels like the > > specification > > for such device is effectively defined by UEFI, with any hypervisor > > providing a > > impl. Perhaps just call it 'uefi-vars-dev' or some name that's relevant for > > what EDK2 calls it ? > > 'host-uefi-vars' maybe? Or 'vmm-uefi-vars'? > > > > There is 'stateless' already for 'firmware image in r/o flash'. > > > > What's the behaviour of UEFI if build with JSON vars support, but without > > QEMU providing any JSON vars backend ? > > It will panic.
In that case, we must not reuse 'stateless' with such builds, as that's quite different semantics & incompatible with current usage. We would need a new 'uefi-vars' mode, or just declare that we must always use 'memory' not 'flash' for such builds. > > > We would want to expand the 'stateless' docs to mention that this feature > > flag indicates optional support for persistence in that case. > > Optional is not possible do due to the way variable store support is > organized in edk2. Firmware can't switch between smm and non-smm > configuration at runtime for similar reasons. > > take care, > Gerd > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
