On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:46 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 23:23, Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:15 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't think we should mirror what is used on ARM virt board to > > > create 2 flash for sifive_u. For ARM virt, there are 2 flashes because > > > they need distinguish secure and non-secure. For sifive_u, only one is > > > enough. > > > > I went back and forward about 1 or 2. Two seems more usable as maybe > > someone wants to include two pflash files? The Xilinx machine also has > > two so I'm kind of used to 2, but I'm not really fussed. > > One of the reasons for having 2 on the Arm board (we do this > even if we're not supporting secure vs non-secure) is that > then you can use one for a fixed read-only BIOS image (backed > by a file on the host filesystem shared between all VMs), and > one backed by a read-write per-VM file providing permanent > storage for BIOS environment variables. Notably UEFI likes to > work this way, but the idea applies in theory to other > boot loader or BIOSes I guess.
This seems like a good reason to have two and there isn't really a disadvantage so I have kept it with two. > > I would suggest also checking with Markus that your code > for instantiating the flash devices follows the current > recommendations so the backing storage can be configured > via -blockdev. (This is a fairly recent change from June or > so; current-in-master virt and sbsa boards provide an example > of doing the right thing, I think.) I have updated the code to more closely match the ARM virt machine, so I think I'm doing it correctly. Alistair > > thanks > -- PMM
