On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 10.04.2010, at 02:00, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 01:29:55AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> On 09.04.2010, at 22:17, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 06:42:41PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> This patch adds a firmware blob to the S390 target. The blob is a simple > >>>> implementation of a virtio client that tries to read the second stage > >>>> bootloader from sectors described as of offset 0x20 in the MBR. > >>>> > >>>> In combination with an updated zipl this allows for booting from virtio > >>>> block devices. This firmware is built from the same sources as the second > >>>> stage bootloader. You can find the zipl patch to build both here: > >>>> > >>>> http://alex.csgraf.de/qemu/0001-Zipl-VirtIO-bootloader-code.patch > >>> > >>> I am not fully comfortable introducing a binary firmware based on a > >>> patch posted on a website. I see two options: > >>> - Get your patch merged into ZIPL, so that we can build the firmware > >>> directly from the ZIPL sources > >> > >> IBM wants to keep the copyright on the zipl sources, so this one's out. > > > > You can't transfer the copyright, as it is done for example for GNU > > projects? > > I don't think so. Apart from it being illegal in Germany (you can't transfer > full copyrights) I'm not sure that'd really help. > > Another idea: > > How about I set up a git tree on repo.or.cz and put it there? That git tree > would contain all my changes, be a single public source and I'd try to pull > all 'upstream' changes back in?
Also looks a good idea. > >>> > >>> Also do you really want to make the firmware mandatory? What about a > >>> warning and falling back to the direct kernel boot instead (if provided), > >>> as it is already now. Some other machines are doing that. > >> > >> Yes, I do. It doesn't hurt to have it loaded and on -kernel we can just > >> set the PSW differently, thus making the guest jump directly into the > >> kernel. So the firmware is loaded and completely ignored. That's btw what > >> happens with this patch already. -kernel overrides the firmware. > >> > > > > That means people needs to have the firmware installed even if they > > don't need it. > > I don't see a problem there. It's less than 4k. Plus it's mandatory for x86 > and ppc too, so why make it different? > It's mandatory for x86 and ppc as the bootloader is actually doing the jump to the kernel (for ppc it even provide some services to the kernel). The main problem I see is for distributions that want to rebuild the firmwares from sources. Also making it optional is just a few lines more. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
