On 10 June 2014 17:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 10/06/2014 18:17, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>
>>>> >> + create_one_flash("virt.flash0", flashbase, flashsize);
>>>> >> + create_one_flash("virt.flash1", flashbase + flashsize,
>>>> >> flashsize);
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What happens if you specify both -bios and -drive if=pflash? Can you
>>> > check
>>> > that the user does not specify both?
>>
>> We'll create the device and then overlay it with the "ROM"
>> image, same as for vexpress. (If the bios image is short
>> then the underlying pflash contents will be visible.)
>
>
> Could you provide slightly saner semantics for -M virt? :)
Heh. How about:
* if both bios_name and pflash drive 0 specified, this is an error
* otherwise use whichever we have
* (NB that bios_name + pflash drive 1 is a reasonable combination)
vexpress should do this too, for consistency.
(Actually ideally I'd just make bios_name be a convenient
shortcut for specifying a block backend for pflash that's
readonly and permits undersized backing files, but I don't
think we can easily do that right now.)
thanks
-- PMM
