[SeaBIOS] Re: [PATCH] fw/coreboot.c: Use coreboot table to find cbfs

2021-05-25 Thread Peter Stuge
Hi, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Note that the linux kernel's in-kernel interfaces are explicitly *not* > backward compatible though. .. > I fail to see the problem. seabios is part of the firmware, So that's important, I hope to help create some understanding: coreboot and SeaBIOS are cleanly

[SeaBIOS] Re: SeaBIOS fails to boot from NVMe controller with lots of namespaces

2021-05-25 Thread Cole Robinson
On 5/25/21 12:06 PM, Thanos Makatos wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Cole Robinson >> Sent: 25 May 2021 17:01 >> To: Gerd Hoffmann >> Cc: Thanos Makatos ; seabios@seabios.org; >> John Levon ; Swapnil Ingle >> ; Liu, Changpeng >> Subject: Re: [SeaBIOS] Re: SeaBIOS fails to boot from

[SeaBIOS] Re: SeaBIOS fails to boot from NVMe controller with lots of namespaces

2021-05-25 Thread Thanos Makatos
> -Original Message- > From: Cole Robinson > Sent: 25 May 2021 17:01 > To: Gerd Hoffmann > Cc: Thanos Makatos ; seabios@seabios.org; > John Levon ; Swapnil Ingle > ; Liu, Changpeng > Subject: Re: [SeaBIOS] Re: SeaBIOS fails to boot from NVMe controller with > lots of namespaces > > On

[SeaBIOS] Re: SeaBIOS fails to boot from NVMe controller with lots of namespaces

2021-05-25 Thread Cole Robinson
On 5/25/21 9:23 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >> Where can I file this so it doesn't get lost? >> Anyone know a qemu command line workaround? > > Does > https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/seabios@seabios.org/thread/2Q7NPH7TJNHK6JGPHQL7755HILO23ISN/ > help? > No, tested with

[SeaBIOS] Re: SeaBIOS fails to boot from NVMe controller with lots of namespaces

2021-05-25 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > Where can I file this so it doesn't get lost? > Anyone know a qemu command line workaround? Does https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/seabios@seabios.org/thread/2Q7NPH7TJNHK6JGPHQL7755HILO23ISN/ help? take care, Gerd ___ SeaBIOS

[SeaBIOS] Re: [PATCH] fw/coreboot.c: Use coreboot table to find cbfs

2021-05-25 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > > As far I know there is no policy on that written down somewhere. In > > general we try avoid breaking backward compatibility (and thus requiring > > lockstep updates). But maintaining backward compatibility has a cost > > too, so this isn't set in stone. > > Sure, but backwards