Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next 4/5] tools: load IPXE from standalone file

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 25.06.18 at 10:16, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 07:22:42PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> > diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c 
>> > b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
>> > index f603f68ded..f546cfb3ab 100644
>> > --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
>> > +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
>> > @@ -368,7 +368,13 @@ int main(void)
>> >  #ifdef ENABLE_ROMBIOS
>> >      else if ( bios == &rombios_config )
>> >      {
>> > -        bios->bios_load(bios, NULL, 0);
>> > +        const struct hvm_modlist_entry *ipxe;
>> > +        uint32_t paddr = 0;
>> > +
>> > +        ipxe = get_module_entry(hvm_start_info, "ipxe");
>> > +        if ( ipxe )
>> > +            paddr = ipxe->paddr;
>> > +        bios->bios_load(bios, (void*)paddr, 0 /* unused */);
>> 
>> I don't think it's a good idea to change the meaning of the arguments of
>> bios_load(). For every other use of bios_load, the second argument is
>> used at the address of the firmware to load. Here "ipxe" is an extra
>> blob to load.
> 
> We either add more arguments to bios_load or repurpose the existing
> one(s). I'm not too fussed with either option really.
> 
> Jan and Andrew, your opinion?

Hmm, it did look fine to me, but if Anthony has strong reservations,
maybe adding a new parameter might be better indeed?

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel