On 27 January 2017 at 14:31, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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?
Looking more closely at the patch, changing writeblock underneath a guest's feet is probably not very polite, so let's take the safe path of making it version-dependent. I've applied David's patch to target-arm.next (with some tweaks to the commit message). thanks -- PMM
