Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Defining firmware (OVMF, et al) metadata format & file

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:47:27PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 03/08/18 16:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:10:30PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: [...] >>> For OVMF (x86), I guess the initial set of properties should come from >>> the "-D FOO[=BAR]" build flags that OVMF currently supports. (The list >>> might grow or change incompatibly over time, so this is just a raw >>> starter idea.) >> >> I really don't want to see us using firmware implementation specific >> property names in these files. It means libvirt will require knowledge >> of what each different firmware's property names mean. >> >> We need to have some core standardized set of property names that can >> be provided by any firmware implementation using the same terminology. >> >> If we want to /also/ provide some extra firmeware-specific property >> names that would be ok for informative purposes, but when lbivirt is >> picking which firmware file to use, it would only ever look at the >> standardized property names/values. > > This is a reasonable requirement from the libvirt side. > > Unfortunately (or not), it requires someone (or a tight group of people) > to collect the features of all virtual firmwares in existence, and > extract a common set of properties that maps back to each firmware one > way or another. Hmm, if people consider the above worthwhile (no clue how much time & investigation it takes to arrive at a common set of properties) maybe slowly we should start collecting such a page? From a quick look up, list of open source firmware implementations I found so (besides OVMF & ArmVirt): - OpenBIOS - SmartFirmware - OpenBoot - CoreBoot - U-Boot - SLOF - ... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBIOS I notice you said "virtual firmwares". I couldn't find such a list from my look up. Hmm, I also wonder if the "arriving at a common set of properties across existing virtual firmwares" is an absolute blocker.

> This is not unusual (basically this is how all standards > bodies work that intend to codify existing practice), it just needs a > bunch of work and coordination. We'll have to maintain a registry. > > Personally I can't comment on anything else than OVMF and the ArmVirt > firmwares. > > Thanks, > Laszlo