Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/27/13 18:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the proper way to back partially writable flash contents isn't
>> splitting it into two devices, but backing a single device with a COW.
>> The backing file has initial contents (say BIOS image), the delta may
>> have
On 11/27/13 18:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Perhaps the proper way to back partially writable flash contents isn't
> splitting it into two devices, but backing a single device with a COW.
> The backing file has initial contents (say BIOS image), the delta may
> have additional contents (say non-
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/27/13 15:45, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> On 11/27/13 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Jordan Justen writes:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>>
On 11/27/13 15:45, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 11/27/13 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Jordan Justen writes:
>>>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Your stated purpose for mult
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/27/13 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Jordan Justen writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Your stated purpose for multiple -pflash:
>
> This accommodates the fo
On 11/27/13 14:49, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 11/26/13 13:53, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>>> Thus, we grab *all* if=pflash drives for this purpose.
>>>
>>> Your stated use case wants just two.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Are we sure we'll never want to map an if=pflash device some
On 11/27/13 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Jordan Justen writes:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
Your stated purpose for multiple -pflash:
This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OV
Jordan Justen writes:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>>> Your stated purpose for multiple -pflash:
>>>
>>> This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OVMF is split in
>>> two parts, a writeable host fil
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/26/13 13:53, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Thus, we grab *all* if=pflash drives for this purpose.
>>
>> Your stated use case wants just two.
>>
>> Hmm. Are we sure we'll never want to map an if=pflash device somewhere
>> else?
>
> No, I'm not sure.
Perhaps grabbin
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Your stated purpose for multiple -pflash:
>>
>> This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OVMF is split in
>> two parts, a writeable host file for non-volatile variable stor
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/26/13 14:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> On 11/25/13 16:32, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>
> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
On 11/26/13 14:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 11/25/13 16:32, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>>
This patch allows the user to usefully specify
-drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
-drive file=img_2,if=pflash,fo
On 11/26/13 13:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Your stated purpose for multiple -pflash:
>
> This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OVMF is split in
> two parts, a writeable host file for non-volatile variable storage, and a
> read-only part for bootstrap and decompress
On 11/26/13 13:53, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Thus, we grab *all* if=pflash drives for this purpose.
>
> Your stated use case wants just two.
>
> Hmm. Are we sure we'll never want to map an if=pflash device somewhere
> else?
No, I'm not sure.
Thanks
Laszlo
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/25/13 16:32, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>>
>>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>>
>>> on the command line. The flash images
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/22/13 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>>
>>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>>
>>> on the command line. The flash images
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/25/13 16:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> On 11/22/13 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>
> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
On 11/25/13 16:32, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>
>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>
>> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
On 11/25/13 16:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> On 11/22/13 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>>
This patch allows the user to usefully specify
-drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
-drive file=img_2,if=pflash,fo
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>
> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>
> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
> reverse unit order -- that is, with their base addr
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 11/22/13 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>>
>>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>>
>>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>>
>>> on the command line. The flash images
On 11/22/13 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
>
>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>
>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>
>> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>
> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>
> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
> reverse unit order -- that is, with their base addr
On 11/21/13 23:26, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 03:21 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>
>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>
>> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under
On 11/21/2013 03:21 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>
> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>
> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
> reverse unit order -- that i
This patch allows the user to usefully specify
-drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
-drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
reverse unit order -- that is, with their base addresses progressing
downwards, in inc
26 matches
Mail list logo
