On 12 January 2017 at 11:36, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, >> but this looks like it's probably the right thing. >> >> The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie >> which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. >> For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. >> >> Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt >> still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and >> migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... >> > > I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for > his opinion.
So given our decision about not needing the back-compat property for the UEFI table entry, do we still agree that we need one here? thanks -- PMM
