Comments? Please try to add the original recipients to CC if you answer.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:37:49 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori aliguori@us.ibm.com To: Jordan Justen jljusten@gmail.com CC: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org References: 4AC29E4D.80707@us.ibm.com D0452B81-706B-4154-92E1-6E253A305053@claunia.com 4AC4A487.1050003@us.ibm.com 2a50f7880910011410u6afbb658hf99839fdb3e7bab1@mail.gmail.com 4AC51DBA.7020609@codemonkey.ws 2a50f7880910011741k65ac8dfbq2fc8c9f58f5fa8d9@mail.gmail.com 4AC60037.6000001@codemonkey.ws 2a50f7880910020958g3fe5eadehe5e5094c05b218d9@mail.gmail.com 4AC64A5C.6010003@gmx.net 2a50f7880910021357i2b441f5flb98b1fa41c5f2150@mail.gmail.com
Jordan Justen wrote:
Carl-Daniel,
Interesting. So, where can I download a QEMU bios rom to boot a UEFI OS with this solution?
Can you explain what coreboot+tianocore means? Which parts of tianocore do you use in this situation?
If your solution can accomplish all of what you say, I'm not sure how OVMF would be able to compete against in terms of being included with QEMU. Part of the reason for starting OVMF was to help enable UEFI support within VM's such as QEMU. If OVMF was utilized by QEMU it definitely would have been a bit of a boost for our efforts, but if QEMU accomplishes UEFI support via another path, then overall we will still be happy.
FWIW, I looked more closely at Coreboot + SeaBIOS today. It's much less functional than just SeaBIOS alone. There really is no additional functionality because all payloads that Coreboot can run already run directly under QEMU (or under SeaBIOS).
With respect to Coreboot + SeaBIOS + UEFI, AFAIK, you cannot have multiple payloads without using essentially a payload switcher (like Bayou). The problem with this though is your just deferring the EFI/BIOS choice to the user in a different place. What we need is a mechanism to transparently choose UEFI or SeaBIOS depending on whether the guest is EFI aware.
I think option roms further complicate the matter because we would need a gPXE EFI module to support network boot. That makes the switch logic even more complicated. For PCI passthrough, I assume that the legacy option ROMs have to be loaded through a CSM so if we want to enable PCI passthrough, we really need a proper CSM.