From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53498) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5pH9-0001CC-Eg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:09:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5pH8-0005Z0-Ao for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:09:15 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:44530 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5pH8-0005Ym-5k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:09:14 -0400 References: <20180407000117.25640-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20180409081923.n2ktwrp2jp7xpoon@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <43fbc488-20d6-f5de-0a56-6c28355cc4d4@redhat.com> <20180410061840.k263ac2b2lgnwi5c@sirius.home.kraxel.org> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <6059acbf-90be-d888-bbb2-67cadda33ae0@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:09:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180410061840.k263ac2b2lgnwi5c@sirius.home.kraxel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu RFC] qapi: add "firmware.json" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, libvir-list@redhat.com, "Daniel P. Berrange" , Alexander Graf , Ard Biesheuvel , David Gibson , Eric Blake , Gary Ching-Pang Lin , Kashyap Chamarthy , Markus Armbruster , Michael Roth , Michal Privoznik , Peter Krempa , Peter Maydell , David Gibson , Laurent Vivier , Mark Cave-Ayland On 04/10/18 08:18, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>> uboot for example implements uefi unterfaces too (dunno how complete, >>> but reportly recent versions can run uefi shell and grub just fine). >> >> Indeed: when I was struggling with this enum type and tried to look for >> more firmware types to add, my googling turned up the "UEFI on Top of >> U-Boot" whitepaper, from Alex and Andreas :) > > In case you wanna play: uboot supports x86 qemu meanwhile, so you can > try install u-boot.git-x86 from my firmware repo, then run > "qemu-system-x86_64 -bios /usr/share/u-boot.git/x86/qemu-pc/u-boot.rom". > > It certainly isn't a useful edk2 replacement atm. It has no virtio > drivers. And even when using ide storage its not like it would happily > boot a fedora live iso. So I certainly wouldn't tag that as uefi today. > That might change at some point in the future though. > >> Again, this reaches to the root of the problem: when a user creates a >> new domain, using high-level tools, they just want to tick "UEFI". (Dan >> has emphasized this to me several times, so I think I get the idea by >> now, if not the full environment.) We cannot ask the user, "please be >> more specific, do you want UEFI from edk2, or UEFI on top of U-Boot?" > > Well, in case the uefi support in u-boot is good enough some day then it > doesn't matter to the user whenever uboot or edk2 boots the efi guest > from disk/iso, right? I believe that's correct. Laszlo