[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 00/22] Generate ACPI v5.1 tables and expose t

From: Shannon Zhao
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 00/22] Generate ACPI v5.1 tables and expose them to guest over fw_cfg on ARM
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 17:48:11 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0

Hi Peter,

On 2015/5/8 0:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Hi. I've had a look through these patches now, and sent some mails
> for a couple of specific issues. For the rest, this is what I'd
> like to see for me to pull this in to target-arm:

Thanks for your review comments.

> (1) acks or reviewed-by from one of the QEMU ACPI folk for any
> patch that's touching generic ACPI code.

Yeah, Igor said he will give reviewed-by for these patches.

> (2) series should pass checkpatch.pl (you have a lot of overlong lines
> warnings at the moment).

Sorry, I will fix patch 07/22, but to patch 01/22, as I just move the
file, maybe I don't need to deal the formats error of acpi-defs.h. Right?

> (3) we shouldn't generate any ACPI tables or information where the
> corresponding kernel code hasn't been accepted into mainline or
> the arm64 tree; if there's anything here which isn't covered by
> the accepted ACPI patches we should postpone that til the kernel
> parts are in.

There are uart, virtio-mmio, PCIe whose kernel patches are not accepted
into kernel mainline.
For PCIe I think this is harmless. The PCIe ACPI table's format don't
need to change even though the kernel code changes because it's defined
by PCI firmware SPEC.
For virtio-mmio the kernel code just add acpi_match_table for kernel
driver to probe the device by ACPI. To be honestly the only thing will
be changed is the _HID and this change is very small. It's same with uart.

In a word, the only thing will be changed is the _HID of virtio-mmio and
uart. But if we get these tables in, it's useful for people to test the
corresponding kernel code.

> If item (3) seems too awkward or harsh as a criterion I'm
> open to discussion about it, but my feeling is that I'd
> rather not start emitting tables until they're definitely
> nailed down in format by being in the kernel.
> Finally, if you have some prebuilt images and command lines that
> would be helpful, since I can put them into my local set of
> things I run to check for breakage before making ARM pull requests.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]