On 20/04/2018 03:03, David Gibson wrote:
> This also implies I shouldn't add "openbios"
separately, which was
> suggested earlier by Gerd -- according to
> <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBIOS>, OpenBIOS is another
> implementation of OFW.
Right. Although I think OpenBIOS and SLOF support a disjoint set of
machines. Openhackware which is (was?) used on some machines is yet
another (very partial) openfirmware implementation.
We can:
1a) replace the architecture field with an ABI field (seems wrong to me)
1b) add an "ABI" field (containing e.g. prep, spapr, etc.) to complement
the architecture field
2) we include directly a glob pattern for the QEMU machine types (also
seems wrong).
3) just like we effectively moved the guest ABI to the features field,
we split the features into host-features and guest-features, and the
host ABI (prep, spapr, etc.; but also OVMF's SMM requirement fits here
for example) moves into host-features. Again, just like 1a/1b, this can
be replace or complement the architecture field, and I think I'd prefer
the latter
Paolo