On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 08:19:16PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:33:19 +0200 > Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:46:09 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 06:23:28PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:59:20 +0300 > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > All we care about for a compatible bios is that it > > > keep working in old hardware configurations. > > > IMO there's no real need for old BIOS to work > > > with e.g. memory hotplug - it's reasonable > > > to ask users to update fitmware if they want > > > to use this feature. > > Fine with me if we don't care about strange hangs if something misused. > > > > But RamSizeOver4G still doesn't allow correctly place PCI window if large > > amount of memory present/reserved. > BTW: I don't think it's good practice to change semantics of an old interface > in general. It's less confusing to leave old interface as is (obsoleting it > eventually) and use a new one.
I agree. The RamSizeOver4G (as passed via three cmos bytes) is ugly - lets not make it more complex. Any new info can be passed via fw_cfg. Indeed, I'd happily accept patches that migrated the existing cmos parameters to new fw_cfg entries. -Kevin
