From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: Xen 4.6, OVMF and arm64 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:11:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20151014112932.GG23759@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1444822709.23192.166.camel@citrix.com> <20151014130404.GA12818@zion.uk.xensource.com> <20151014132437.GK23759@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1444829757.23192.190.camel@citrix.com> <1444831823.23192.204.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1444831823.23192.204.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: anthony.perard@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Wei Liu , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 14:51 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > I am very practical in this regard and I just don't want the raisin > > build to fail on arm64 with xen 4.6. We could have a different raisin > > config file, with a different ovmf revision for Xen 4.6 on arm64, but I > > would prefer to avoid it: I think it is nicer and simpler if one config > > file per Xen release was provided, no matter the underlying arch. > > In other words ovmf is built separately on raisin on x86 too, but I > > would prefer if we used the same ovmf revision for all archs. > > Please bear in mind that what you are asking is has consequences outside of > raisin which are not necessarily simple. > > Right now we do not having a branching strategy for ovmf, so cherry-picking > fixes for aarch64 means someone would need to come up with one and > implement it. There are also the implications which Wei raised. > > Based on Wei's comments regarding support from upstream it seems like we > should probably just pull ovmf forward to something newer (~= current > tested master based on x86 testing) for 4.6.1. That's fine for me