* Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 8/20/19 4:36 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> On 8/20/19 3:38 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >>> On 8/20/19 3:12 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
_VIRTUAL) +
> - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50));
That's 1/50th of a second in ns.
> + (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 5000));
I'm not too sure about readid; but assuming we're rotating at 360rpm,
that's 6 revolutions/second, and 18 sectors
e guest os do the initialization. The inability to boot
> from devices in another domain is indeed an issue, and we don't have very
> good solution to it yet.
>
> Things might change in the future if we can figure out a better solution, and
> I
> hope we can have an easier and more elegant solution in OVMF. But now
> we are just trying to give a possible solution as a poc.
>
> Thanks
> Zihan
>
> ___
> SeaBIOS mailing list
> SeaBIOS@seabios.org
> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
___
SeaBIOS mailing list
SeaBIOS@seabios.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
cations which should really be
> solved), so I guess it's OK to postpone NOACPI indefinitely.
>
> Self-nack for this set of sets.
>
> Thanks for the feedback,
> Laszlo
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
___
SeaBIOS mailing list
SeaBIOS@seabios.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
b0 06 mov$0x6,%al
f524d: ee out %al,(%dx)
f524e: cc int3
So:
Tested-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
Dave
> ---
> src/fw/shadow.c | 14 +-
> src/hw/pci.c| 1 -
>
happen; OK lets try and get it for
the next one, it's not been a recent bug as far as I can tell.
Dave
>
> thanks,
> Gerd
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
___
SeaBIOS mailing list
SeaBIOS@seabios.org
https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>> On 15/02/2017 18:35, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >>>>> Yes it seems to.
> >>>>> One worry is that if we ever fix the qemu triple-fault so it really
> >>>>> does what you're describing and only re
* Kevin O'Connor (ke...@koconnor.net) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:07:05AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > In the principal of removing our quirks, the following seems to work for me,
> > Kevin, do you agree it's the right behaviour?
>
> I ran some quick
I
> don't think there's a good way to emulate that with page tables (and
> the range needs to be executable so just making it all device memory
> isn't practical). Even if it were implemented, though, I doubt it
> would help much.
In the principal of removing our quirks, the following se
+pci_reboot();
+
// Reboot using ACPI RESET_REG
acpi_reboot();
// Try keyboard controller reboot.
i8042_reboot();
-// Try PCI 0xcf9 reboot
-pci_reboot();
-
// Try triple fault
asm volatile("int3");
I went for pci_reboo
one 128k bios, for backward compatibility, and with
> support for features added only recently to qemu turned off to make it
> fit. And one full-featured 256k bios version. Only the 128k version
> needs support for old qemu versions without proper PAM emulation.
But of course that's the one
* Kevin O'Connor (ke...@koconnor.net) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 02:50:23PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > I've been sporadically carrying on debugging this and I
> > think I have a bit more understanding, but not quite all the way.
> >
> > I'm prett
* Kevin O'Connor (ke...@koconnor.net) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:49:07PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Laszlo Ersek (ler...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > On 01/23/17 16:49, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:11:02AM +0100, Lasz
* Dr. David Alan Gilbert (dgilb...@redhat.com) wrote:
> * Laszlo Ersek (ler...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On 01/23/17 16:49, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:11:02AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > >> On 01/20/17 20:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote
* Laszlo Ersek (ler...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 01/23/17 16:49, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:11:02AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> On 01/20/17 20:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >>> * Kevin O'Connor (ke...@koconnor.net) wrote:
> >&g
* Kevin O'Connor (ke...@koconnor.net) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 06:40:44PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I turned the debug level up to 4 on our smaller (128k) ROM downstream
> > build and seem to have hit a case where it's been layed out so tha
ing?
I'd chosen a debug level of 4 since that was the largest it would go
without the build complaining it wouldn't fit, so I thought I was
safe since something did complain if it got way too big.
(This is based off 1.9.1)
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb.
17 matches
Mail list logo
