Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
Good. Implementing sector locking would be even better. I'm not asking you to do that work. >> 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. You might want to consider omitting legacy configuration options -drive if=pflash and -bios for a simpler interface.
