On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:04:32PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > What really convinced me to go for all this additional work was > > Laszlo's suggestion that this might help if/when we try to start > > trying to use UEFI/tianocore/ovmf instead of SeaBIOS. > > Let me be a bit more precise... :) > > Moving SMBIOS generation from SeaBIOS to qemu (similarly to ACPI) would > benefit: > - SeaBIOS (IIRC Kevin had implied his preference for this), > - OVMF (no need to play catch-up field-wise), > - other boot firmware. > > I think I didn't suggest using OVMF *instead of* SeaBIOS. :)
Sorry if I unintentionally misrepresented what you said, I was trying to paraphrase precisely what you just said above :) > In any case, I think if you can pull of this migration of SMBIOS tables, > that would be a huge service to the community. I should have reviewed > your series but it seemed hard, and I didn't have to "look very far" for > other work :), so I postponed it. Then Gerd said "please split it up > into smaller patches", which I can only agree with! :) I'll send the current set of seven patches, which basically replace the way types 0 and 1 are handled with building full tables, and adds the option to request that a type 2 table be built. I'd like to get the rest of what SeaBIOS builds by default (types 3+) in before the 2.0 freeze (BTW, how much longer do I have for that?), but while I start hacking on that I figured I'd help you help me by making it easy to review what I have so far... :) Thanks again, --Gabriel
