On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:54:51 +0100 Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/17/19 11:22, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>>>>> create mode 100644 pc-bios/avmf.img > >>>>>> create mode 100644 pc-bios/avmf_vars.img > >>>>> > >>>>> "AVMF" is not a great name. "AAVMF" is a downstream name alright, but > >>>>> many dislike it in upstream use. "edk2-aarch64" or "edk2-ArmVirtQemu" > >>>>> would be more precise, but those are verbose. Sigh, why are names so > >>>>> hard. What does everyone think? > >>>> I'm fine with either version. > > > > How about placing them in pc-bios/efi-$arch subdirs and not renaming the > > files, i.e. that would be ... > > > > pc-bios/efi-aarch64/QEMU_EFI.fd > > pc-bios/efi-aarch64/QEMU_VARS.fd > > > > ... for arm, and ... > > > > pc-bios/efi-x86_64/OVMF_CODE.fd > > pc-bios/efi-x86_64/OVMF_VARS.fd > > > > ... for x86. if it's non production images (i.e. openssl-less) than maybe use tests/data/acpi instead of pc-bios for now, once we have pc-bios ones ready we drop test specific and use production ones. > That sounds good to me. One thing to note is that the arm/aarch64 images > have to be padded to 64MB, so I generally append ".padded" to those file > names. Would that be OK? Any better ideas? Images could be pre-padded and ready for commit, wrt large size we can commit them compressed and decompress for using in tests instead of padding padding I'm doing now before I use them. > >> Could we please decide for (1) vs (2), before I put more work into (1)? > > > > I'd tend to prefer (1). +1 > > Thanks. I have a patch set that's almost suitable for posting as an RFC. > I should split the last patch and write some sensible commit messages. > > BTW, the bundling under pc-bios is a bit larger task than it immediately > appears: > > - there are many build options to consider (as you know perfectly well > :) ), > > - plus now we have the "docs/interop/firmware.json" schema too, hence > whatever images we build for end-user consumption, should likely be > accompanied by metafiles that conform to this schema. > > I think once we introduce the "roms/edk2" submodule for the current > purpose, we could address the pc-bios binaries (+metafiles) in a > separate series, on top. > > Thanks, > Laszlo >
