On 20.05.20 12:42, Valentin Vidić wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:19:53AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Ah, sorry. I was seeing the cached version of the thread, refreshing helped. >> >> In any case, the SPARC kernel maintainer (Dave Miller) had the same argument >> that it would potentially break existing setups but eventually I could >> convince him that the change was right. >> >> Not sure which distributions he has in mind. > > It is hard to tell, but it seems the current state is hardcoded > in different places: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-May/msg00068.html > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/linuxonibm/com.ibm.linux.z.lhdd/lhdd_r_console_sum.html > > I think it would be better to make debian-installer smarter about > this since we will probably run into the same problem again with > a different architecture/driver.
qemu-system-s390x is probably the least representative here. I recall that the consoles for z/VM and LPAR were actually different. As alluded to by the thread LPAR uses SCLP while you get 3215 on z/VM. I'm all for making d-i smarter. But I think we should start by trying to back merge all the improvements Canonical made on Ubuntu instead of Debian as part of their s390x contract. Maybe trying ubuntu-installer and seeing if that works correctly would be a good start. But then I keep wondering how representative qemu is. Is VT220 SCLP even something you get on a real z machine? Not that we shouldn't fix qemu, of course. But Hercules might be closer to the real thing in this regard. Kind regards Philipp Kern