[SeaBIOS] [PATCH v2] Update EFI_COMPATIBILITY16_TABLE to match 0.98 spec update

[Kevin O'Connor]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:12:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 12:49 -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 11:56:22AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > We expect to use the space between the top of option ROMs and the bottom
> > > of our own BIOS code as a stack. OVMF was previously marking the whole
> > > region from 0xC0000 to 0xFFFFF read-only before invoking our Legacy16Boot
> > > method. Read-only stack considered harmful.
> > > 
> > > Version 0.98 of the CSM spec adds the UmaAddress and UmaSize fields, which
> > > allow the CSM to specify a memory region that needs to be writable.
> > > 
> > > There exists CONFIG_MALLOC_UPPERMEMORY which we could turn off to use
> > > the 9-segment, but that isn't particularly useful for the CSM case
> > > either because that memory isn't ours to play with until the final
> > > Legacy16Boot call. There's a LowPmmMemory given to use by UEFI to play
> > > with, but that's right in the *middle* of low memory and using that for
> > > persistent allocations would be painful. So just require
> > > CONFIG_MALLOC_UPPERMEMORY when building a CSM.
> > 
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > Are you still looking at this?  If I recall correctly, you were going
> > to run a test without CONFIG_MALLOC_UPPERMEMORY set.
> 
> That appears to make it boot OK, although I'm still not sure it's
> *correct* to be using the 9-segment from the CSM before we've actually
> been told to *boot*. Maybe we just get lucky. 
> 
> Do you want a version of the patch which doesn't add the dependency on
> CONFIG_MALLOC_UPPERMEMORY?

Yes, thanks.  We're about to make the next release, but we can put
this in for the next release.

-Kevin