On 19/11/2014 15:26, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote: >> >> >> On 19/11/2014 15:13, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>> Since we've wondered off the actual ACPI table stuff into general >>> ROM sizing, I'd like to propose some concrete fixes: >>> >>> 1) We explicitly name the bios file in a .romfile attribute for >>> all ROMs. >>> 2) The code that uses .romfile has an expansion for $MACHINETYPE >>> 3) We actually symlink all of those together, anyone who wants/has >>> to deal with different versions can downstream. >>> 4) The machine types contain size attributes for the ROMs that >>> are generoously larger than the ROMs anyone currently uses. >>> >>> I think 1..3 should deal with those of us who have to deal with different >>> ROM versions on different machine types. >> >> It should, but it's a solution in search of a problem. > > Well we already do something close to 1 & 2 downstream but more ad-hoc; > it's just a generalisation (and 4 from padding the size of our images). > So we already had that problem.
Upstream too. See pxe-* vs. efi-* NIC option ROMs. The latter includes both PXE firmware for BIOS and EFI drivers. We keep two copies because they have different sizes. Having explicit expansions for $MACHINETYPE would be hugely overkill, in my opinion. Paolo >> >>> 4 might be good enough for the ACPI tables if you can bound it. >> >> Already doing that (rounding to 128k, warning if >64k), but it is not a >> definitive solution. >> >> We also do (4) for ROMs, since VGA BIOSes use only 36k out of 64k and >> iPXE ROMs use only ~200k out of 256k. >> >> Paolo > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK >
