On 05/30/13 14:19, David Woodhouse wrote:
Yeah, but if we're shoving a lot of hardware-specific ACPI table generation into the guest's firmware, instead of just doing it on the qemu side where a number of us seem to think it belongs, then there *is* a benefit to using Coreboot. When stuff changes on the qemu side and we have to update the table generation to match, you end up having to update just the Coreboot package, and *not* having to patch both SeaBIOS and OVMF.
The extra package in the distro really isn't painful to handle, and I suspect it would end up *reducing* the amount of work that we have to do to update. You update *just* Coreboot, not *both* of SeaBIOS and OVMF.
I can't deny there's logic in that, but it still feels like tying ourselves up in some intricate bondage choreography. "We'd like to move ACPI tables out of firmware, but we can't move them to qemu due to project direction disagreement, so let's adopt a middleman." (I'm not trying to denigrate coreboot -- I don't know it at all --, but introducing it in a (granted, distro-specific) stack just for this purpose seems quite arbitrary.)
If you implement a private UEFI FAT driver from scratch, or port a free software FAT implementation (eg. the r/o one in grub or the r/w one in mtools), you could still run into legal problems, I've been told.
That has been said, and it's been said for the FAT implementation in the kernel too. If a distribution is happy to ship the kernel without ripping out its FAT support, then I see no reason why that distribution wouldn't also be happy to ship a version of OVMF with a clean implementation of FAT support. It doesn't make sense to be happy with one but not the other.
Under my *personal* impression, logic and Common Law don't really mix, especially not in the US. Still under my *personal* impression, someone might not feel convenient suing you for redistributing code that already exists in the upstream Linux kernel, but might happily drag you to court for an original clean implementation, and then you can explain it's illogical for them to do so.
The best I can do with your suggestion is to take it to our legal dept. I would be happy to work on a new FAT driver. (I used to feel differently earlier but I've changed my mind.)
We need at least one out-of-tree edk2 patch for now (from you) but apparently that's no problem.
That'll get merged soon. We are working on the corresponding spec update...