On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 2:00 AM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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.
We just moved to -bios and it's been really helpful. Doesn't -pflash use -drive if=pflash? How else should these be attached? Alistair
