* Michael Brown
> I've been thinking for some time now that it would be useful to have a
> "minimal" configuration used for building real BIOS option ROM images
> and a "normal" configuration for everything else (undionly.kpxe,
> ipxe.efi, UEFI ROMs, qemu ROMs, etc). There are several feature
Sorry, Cole disappeared from the address list, and I forgot to re-add
him. Resending.
On 01/28/16 11:19, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> How common is it to build EFI roms, compared to building ipxe.efi or
>> snponly.efi?
>
> No idea. qemu is a very specific case, ipxe has drivers for the qem
On 01/28/16 11:19, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> How common is it to build EFI roms, compared to building ipxe.efi or
>> snponly.efi?
>
> No idea. qemu is a very specific case, ipxe has drivers for the qemu
> nics (both virtual such as virtio-net and emulated such as rtl8139), and
> right no
On 28/01/16 10:19, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
No idea. qemu is a very specific case, ipxe has drivers for the qemu
nics (both virtual such as virtio-net and emulated such as rtl8139), and
right now we actually build ipxe tree times (bios, efi-ia32,
efi-x86_64), then combine them into a single image, u
* Michael Brown
> ROM image size concerns.
>
> I've been thinking for some time now that it would be useful to have
> a "minimal" configuration used for building real BIOS option ROM
> images and a "normal" configuration for everything else
> (undionly.kpxe, ipxe.efi, UEFI ROMs, qemu ROMs, etc).
Hi,
> How common is it to build EFI roms, compared to building ipxe.efi or
> snponly.efi?
No idea. qemu is a very specific case, ipxe has drivers for the qemu
nics (both virtual such as virtio-net and emulated such as rtl8139), and
right now we actually build ipxe tree times (bios, efi-ia32,
e
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> We already have the named config mechanism. I wonder if building a BIOS
>> option ROM for a real NIC is sufficiently specialised that it would make
>> sense to have a CONFIG=rom or CONFIG=minimal named configuration.
>
> Maybe nam
Hi,
> We already have the named config mechanism. I wonder if building a BIOS
> option ROM for a real NIC is sufficiently specialised that it would make
> sense to have a CONFIG=rom or CONFIG=minimal named configuration.
Maybe name the configs "rom64k" or "rom128k", to make clear they are
st
On 26/01/16 14:21, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
A fedora user requested it here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280318
Ping?
What is the reason for ipv6 not being enabled by default?
Just historical?
Rarely used in practice?
ROM image size issues?
Stability concerns?
From qemu point of
