On 23 January 2017 at 14:10, Artyom Tarasenko <atar4q...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> I see that 'make check' now warns: >> GTESTER check-qtest-sparc64 >> Could not open option rom 'nvram1': No such file or directory >> Could not open option rom '1up-md.bin': No such file or directory >> Could not open option rom '1up-hv.bin': No such file or directory >> Could not open option rom 'reset.bin': No such file or directory >> Could not open option rom 'q.bin': No such file or directory >> Could not open option rom 'openboot.bin': No such file or directory >> >> (though the tests still pass). >> >> Could we either ship these images in pc-bios if they're >> necessary, or not complain that they don't exist if they're >> not necessary, please? > > I wonder what would be the best option here. The images are > necessary, so the last option - not complaining - can be misleading > for a user.
If they're actually necessary then perhaps we should refuse to start entirely? > Concerning shipping them. > Pros: > - the images are obviously freely distributable (the link above). > - the corresponding source code was open-sourced by Sun under various > licenses (GPL for hypervisor, BSD for openboot). > Cons: > - there is no exact tag the the OpenSPARC source tree which would > correspond to the binaries. > - building them is tricky, because it requires Solaris 9 / SPARC. > > What do you think would be a better option? One thing we could do is only warn if !qtest_enabled(). We do this for some other boards that otherwise fail entirely when their BIOS image is not present. This is sufficient for the qtest checks which don't actually try to run code on the guest, but merely interact with it via the qtest protocol. We do ship some other ROMs that are only buildable on the right host hardware, so it's not impossible, but I don't know the details of our rules about what we put in pc-bios/. thanks -- PMM
