On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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.
Right, and I think ACPI generation is getting a bit of special treatment due to its status as "part of firmware". Hardware should probably never change. > > I've applied David's patch to target-arm.next (with some tweaks to > the commit message). > > thanks > -- PMM Thanks, drew
