Re: [edk2-devel] question about qemu+kvm+ovmf+winxp

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 10/11/19 16:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 16:27 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 10/11/19 09:44, Gao, Junhao wrote:
>>> Hi David 
>>>
>>>        I have found this compiled OVMF-with-csm.fd can support winxp booting up.
>>>        OVMF-with-csm.fd path: https://www.kraxel.org/repos/jenkins/seabios/seabios.git-csm-1.12.0-33.63.g43f5df7.x86_64.rpm
>>>        Then could you help to provide me the compile method and base code to reproduce this OVMF-with-csm.fd?
>>
>> Ah, good point, I should have remembered that Gerd offers a CSM build in
>> his repo!
>>
>> So, you can easily look up the build instructions, in Gerd's SeaBIOS and
>> OVMF RPM "spec" files. Check out these git repositories:
>>
>>   https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/seabios/
>>   https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/edk2/
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>>   https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/seabios/tree/seabios.git.spec
>>   https://git.kraxel.org/cgit/jenkins/edk2/tree/edk2.git.spec.template
> 
> Right, thanks.
> 
> Ultimately it's as simple as:
> 
>  • Build SeaBIOS with CONFIG_CSM
>  • Drop the resulting Csm16.bin into OvmfPkg/Csm/Csm16/ in the EDK2 tree
>  • Build EDK2 with -DCSM_ENABLE
> 
> Someone else mailed me recently to say they'd copied the Csm packages
> over from OvmfPkg to Quark and had Windows booting on Galileo boards.  
> 
> Hm, I wonder if we should move the CSM support out of OVMF and into
> somewhere more generic, since it really is generic and not platform-
> specific?

We moved the CSM infrastructure under OvmfPkg because IntelFrameworkPkg
/ IntelFrameworkModulePkg were slated for removal, and this was how we
could salvage the CSM:

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1811

We could likely move it out of OVMF, but if the destination is still the
edk2 tree -- which I would strongly prefer, as long as we support the
CSM at all --, then it will take a new top level directory (CsmPkg, for
example).

No other package maintainer was willing to maintain the CSM, and even
under OvmfPkg, I agreed to it only if you'd assume its reviewership. So
now you'd likely have to introduce CsmPkg, and become its sole (or
primary) maintainer.

I'm 100% OK with that. (Both as OvmfPkg co-maintainer, and as one of the
stewards that might have to ACK (I think?...) the creation of another
top-level directory).

Thanks
Laszlo