qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v8 0/4] i386: expose floppy-related objects in S


From: Roman Kagan
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v8 0/4] i386: expose floppy-related objects in SSDT
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:48:38 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:58PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:08:41PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > On 02/17/2016 09:25 PM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > >Windows on UEFI systems is only capable of detecting the presence and
> > >the type of floppy drives via corresponding ACPI objects.
> > >
> > >Those objects are added in patch 4; the preceding ones pave the way to
> > >it, by making the necessary data public and by moving the whole floppy
> > >drive controller description into runtime-generated SSDT.
> > >
> > >Roman Kagan (4):
> > >   i386/acpi: make floppy controller object dynamic
> > >   i386: expose floppy drive CMOS type
> > >   fdc: add function to determine drive chs limits
> > >   i386: populate floppy drive information in DSDT
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Roman Kagan <address@hidden>
> > >Cc: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
> > >Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden>
> > >Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
> > >Cc: John Snow <address@hidden>
> > >Cc: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>
> > >Cc: Kevin O'Connor <address@hidden>
> > >---
> > >changes since v7:
> > >  - rebased to latest master
> > >  - use drive max c,h,s rather than the current diskette geometry
> > >
> > >  hw/block/fdc.c         | 23 +++++++++++++
> > >  hw/i386/acpi-build.c   | 92 
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > >  hw/i386/pc.c           |  2 +-
> > >  include/hw/block/fdc.h |  2 ++
> > >  include/hw/i386/pc.h   |  1 +
> > >  5 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > >
> > Michael, we have obtained Reviwed-by: from John.
> > Does this set is good to be accepted or your
> > last comment is mandatory?
> 
> Pls do but you can make it a separate patch on top
> if you prefer.

Sorry I must have lost the track: I thought that all your concerns had
been addressed by John's comment.  Can you please point out what issues
still remain in this patchset that prevent it from being merged?

Thanks,
Roman.



reply via email to

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