On 04/10/18 12:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/04/2018 11:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>> And, really, this seems to reinforce my point that the schema should >>> live in the libvirtd tree, not in the QEMU tree. In that case, perhaps >>> it would be a better fit to work with an XSD, and firmware packages >>> should install XML files? Personally I'm a lot more attracted to >>> XML/XSD; I think the tooling is better too. I just don't see how QEMU is >>> involved. >> >> This is defining a set of metadata that is required to use various firmware >> files in combination with QEMU, along with defining a mapping to QEMU command >> line arguments and/or features. Essentially, while I wish everyone used >> libvirt, libvirt is not the only thing that manages QEMU. This information is >> relevant to anyone managing QEMU, so it doesn't belong in libvirt's realm, >> it is clear QEMU is best placed to declare this information. > > QEMU is best placed to _standardize_ how to provide this information > (and where in the file system to place it), but really it's up to > firmware packages to provide it. > > We can of course define the schema in QAPI terms for ease of validation > (machine-readable specs are nice to have), but really this should just > be a file in docs/interop/. No code is needed in QEMU.
OK -- while we're figuring out the schema, I guess I'll keep posting RFCs that change source code / json, but finally we can move it to docs/interop. Thanks! Laszlo