Il 15/05/2013 18:22, Markus Armbruster ha scritto: > Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > >> Il 15/05/2013 17:09, Markus Armbruster ha scritto: >>>>>>> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ void pc_system_firmware_init(MemoryRegion >>>>>>> *rom_memory) >>>>>>> * TODO This device exists only so that users can switch between >>>>>>> * use of flash and ROM for the BIOS. The ability to switch was >>>>>>> * created because flash doesn't work with KVM. Once it does, we >>>>>>> - * should drop this device for new machine types. >>>>>>> + * should drop this device. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> sysfw_dev = (PcSysFwDevice*) qdev_create(NULL, "pc-sysfw"); >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why did you change the comment? >>>> >>>> Because we agreed on the way forward for the flash patches, and it will >>>> remove the need for (a) changes to machine types; (b) pc_sysfw in >>>> general. The device will be created iff a -pflash or -drive if=pflash >>>> option is provided. Thus in principle you could use -M pc-0.12 with >>>> -pflash and it will work. >>> >>> Yes, that's the way forward, and yes, that means we'll have no use for >>> the "pc-sysfw" dummy device on new machine types. But why can we >>> retroactively delete it from existing machine types? >> >> Because it would only affect TCG and people probably don't care much >> about backwards-compatible machine types with TCG. I'd rather remove >> the misfeature completely and start from scratch with a sane design, now >> that we have it. > > I'm fine with limiting our backward compatibility promise to KVM, I just > didn't expect it.
I think in general there's no reason to distinguish TCG from KVM, but in this case we've been doing that all along so... Paolo
