From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B232C33CA8 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E90132080D for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="gXgB9L/4" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E90132080D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:47576 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iqvne-0002yH-21 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:14:18 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54457) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iqvn2-0002Aw-I0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:13:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iqvn1-0007cj-Dd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:13:40 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:44803 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iqvn1-0007aB-8S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:13:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1578906818; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kmkZrw+shUYufRgfuk5ZrNVQicZjuDFrWGQ0h/nELHM=; b=gXgB9L/4aOA2aj2ADdDQSgwXrAW5pQ91g7MeHBhnkIqYOZAqya7Nj7Xp3qHpWGiGQCKWfp b00I3KAk+5hueQiZh2GC9GI9ztXQVXz5wCkfwrcPuyumcl5b1wtm3ntAcIto3AY9KHJvjT KwwpAkBTynGVpKw+8zNqecUSq+aBBBY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-400-_K5jABSXOiSPkf-Y2QjJzg-1; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:13:35 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 431EE1005502; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kinshicho.usersys.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.246]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D5350A8F; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1a8f9121a3cb85d415ff1c67a5379a717ad2b8e0.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH qemu] spapr: Kill SLOF From: Andrea Bolognani To: Alexey Kardashevskiy , Daniel Henrique Barboza , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:13:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5ed92e2a-4b9f-8092-cb67-8d94c3891e20@ozlabs.ru> References: <20200103074404.30853-1-aik@ozlabs.ru> <3cf3e733-199a-61ba-7aaa-05e9546cd4d9@ozlabs.ru> <81f1f752-3ada-2c8d-38b7-1344c7633e14@ozlabs.ru> <5ed92e2a-4b9f-8092-cb67-8d94c3891e20@ozlabs.ru> User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-MC-Unique: _K5jABSXOiSPkf-Y2QjJzg-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.120 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jose Ricardo Ziviani , Fabiano Rosas , Sam Bobroff , Michael Ellerman , Michael Roth , Nicholas Piggin , Paul Mackerras , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Leonardo Augusto =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Guimar=E3es?= Garcia , Leonardo Bras , David Gibson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 13:34 +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 07/01/2020 20:39, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 12:55 +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > > Petitboot kernel+initramdisk almost replaces SLOF + GRUB. > > > > Is this necessarily a good thing? > > The bare metal host and the powernv machine in QEMU do not use grub, > they use petitboot which parses all grub configs and supports quite a lot. How well does the distro integration work? Eg. if I change something in /etc/default/grub and then run grub2-mkconfig, can I expect my changes to be picked up? In which scenarios will that *not* work? > Using Linux for a boot loader is not powerpc-only thing really, some > folks do this too (forgot who, just heard this at the KVM forum). While other options are available and some architectures use something else entirely, GRUB is the de-facto standard across most of the non-obscure architectures. I guess the question is whether it's more important to be consistent within the architecture or across them. I think the latter might be preferable, especially when we consider what I think is the most common scenario, that is, someone who's used to having GRUB on their x86 machine running a ppc64 guest on the cloud. The more skills they can automatically transfer over, the better. > > Personally I quite like the fact > > that I can use the same bootloader across x86, ppc64 and aarch64. > > I am not suggesting removing SLOF soon Perhaps the patch subject shouldn't be "kill SLOF" then? ;) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization