[SeaBIOS] KVM call agenda for 2013-06-11
Anthony Liguori
anthony at codemonkey.ws
Tue Jun 11 20:38:11 CEST 2013
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:24:31PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Juan is not available now, and Anthony asked for
>> agenda to be sent early.
>> So here comes:
>>
>> Agenda for the meeting Tue, June 11:
>>
>> - Generating acpi tables, redux
>
> Not so much notes as a quick summary of the call:
>
> There are the following reasons to generate ACPI tables in QEMU:
>
> - sharing code with e.g. ovmf
> Anthony thinks this is not a valid argument
>
> - so we can make tables more dynamic and move away from iasl
> Anthony thinks this is not a valid reason too,
> since qemu and seabios have access to same info
> MST noted several info not accessible to bios.
> Anthony said they can be added, e.g. by exposing
> QOM to the bios.
>
> - even though most tables are static, hardcoded
> they are likely to change over time
> Anthony sees this as justified
>
> To summarize, there's a concensus now that generating ACPI
> tables in QEMU is a good idea.
I would say best worst idea ;-)
I am deeply concerned about the complexity it introduces but I don't see
many other options.
>
> Two issues that need to be addressed:
> - original patches break cross-version migration. Need to fix that.
>
> - Anthony requested that patchset is merged together with
> some new feature. I'm not sure the reasoning is clear:
> current a version intentionally generates tables
> that are bug for bug compatible with seabios,
> to simplify testing.
I expect that there will be additional issues that need to be worked out
and want to see a feature that actually uses the infrastructure before
we add it.
> It seems clear we have users for this such as
> hotplug of devices behind pci bridges, so
> why keep the infrastructure out of tree?
It's hard to evaluate the infrastructure without a user.
> Looking for something additional, smaller as the hotplug patch
> is a bit big, so might delay merging.
>
>
> Going forward - would we want to move
> smbios as well? Everyone seems to think it's a
> good idea.
Yes, independent of ACPI, I think QEMU should be generating the SMBIOS
tables.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> --
> MST
More information about the SeaBIOS
mailing list