From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 2002:a5d:6089:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w9csp532467wrt; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:26:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/U0OkkaCmdwht7uxXe49oSfUdlTzLxjYvKyhJCitw3o2HGtdO9jaXTLTOBY3COeNkc5z69Q X-Received: by 2002:a81:4506:: with SMTP id s6mr32497328ywa.200.1543375609811; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:26:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1543375609; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=rKdzNqMwrqyay3/ScovdOHprD2YNDpfujIhuBPW3ndK8x5TNtmzCjEFnVOUpOiqaMq f/bSFv/J47SqYEpAIsDeO+1hiTWMt04x8680XXL1oK8mustO3aQwggV8AyqyNl7YhC/x 30i+UhqWbly78uTIClQJ3d4fJcE/vyNDDhHGskGrAHtyMMoxfq7Ssd/nuNA0xBj2ME82 WIaY/NCJ/OHurYnMHJfhDKAGy/ZQcpKuPzEWNOOwmmjel4yIoIbdGuXB86X2BAfuES/2 G85w+Q9NMUSSv5bYcx3sMlq/wIlSCpd5W38BYydmMGoNFJ8Y/bOILjZUGqWvBMpsEzFV mjEg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=sender:errors-to:cc:list-subscribe:list-help:list-post:list-archive :list-unsubscribe:list-id:precedence:subject:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:to:from:date; bh=xKWZuN/zA4BXPTdN6tHOmlOAEfO6qDzDlaHt9UEd7RE=; b=RN2k+f7QOTdiF3FrfCAFXaKw0VIw6SFzwhaG09z8rDL5+OF17YuIrvKAPjbqBxH+F2 vNUUmTfzJFDgJAOCEx6iFjOWdLKjA+skjWu9DcpUkQKy76UboPvKdSBLrKnm2oD9mxR7 Ydd/SoeZ/jzO06E7FNsvguDcDJDjk11aKZF1nln/sibR51ayiJaeKKzJdGA5fw3G9VKX l+EObJSDiQd62KNWyY41SbVpAgRaUgt7agsiRg838+qOBAOKkP4Y1/7xqpb32WtY78SV HRWSgdi1qIl6WLBlfLirI1LyCY9kyuXanGy/WScDC1EcgV4n07bgzJ6QEthP9wpHHpzx F78A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org. [2001:4830:134:3::11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z124-v6si3798519yba.78.2018.11.27.19.26.49 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:4830:134:3::11; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: from localhost ([::1]:45670 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRqUz-0000zP-8t for alex.bennee@linaro.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:49 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRqUs-0000z7-Cm for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRqUn-0001p2-Ik for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43726) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRqUn-0001oX-BF; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:37 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 290C330820EE; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-121-88.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.121.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A54C600C0; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:26:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:30 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20181127221515-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20181126162942.21258-1-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20181126162942.21258-5-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20181127162551.29608eeb@redhat.com> <20181127154218.GA5677@caravaggio> <20181127172749.75a036b4@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181127172749.75a036b4@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.47]); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:26:36 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 4/8] hw: arm: Carry RSDP specific data through AcpiRsdpData X-BeenThere: qemu-arm@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Laurent Vivier , Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth , Samuel Ortiz , Ben Warren , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , Shannon Zhao , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Marcel Apfelbaum , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson Errors-To: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-arm" X-TUID: imXmVtfFve+Y On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:27:49PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:42:18 +0100 > Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > Hi Igor, > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:25:51PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:29:37 +0100 > > > Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > > > > > That will allow us to generalize the ARM build_rsdp() routine to support > > > > both legacy RSDP (The current i386 implementation) and extended RSDP > > > > (The ARM implementation). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz > > > > --- > > > > include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h > > > > index af8e023968..e7fd24c6c5 100644 > > > > --- a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h > > > > +++ b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ struct AcpiRsdpDescriptor { /* Root System Descriptor Pointer */ > > > > } QEMU_PACKED; > > > > typedef struct AcpiRsdpDescriptor AcpiRsdpDescriptor; > > > > > > > > +typedef struct AcpiRsdpData { > > > > + uint8_t oem_id[6]; /* OEM identification */ > > > > + uint8_t revision; /* Must be 0 for 1.0, 2 for 2.0 */ > > > > + > > > > + unsigned *rsdt_tbl_offset; > > > > + unsigned *xsdt_tbl_offset; > > > > +} AcpiRsdpData; > > > > + > > > > > > > +#define ACPI_RSDP_REV_1 0 > > > > +#define ACPI_RSDP_REV_2 2 > > > it's one time used spec defined values so just use values directly > > > in place with a comment, so reader won't have to jump around code > > > when comparing to spec. > > It's also used in the ACPI tests fix patch. > it's better to use in test it's own version (we just opencode them there) > see fadt_fetch_facs_and_dsdt_ptrs()/sanitize_fadt_ptrs() > same applies for length. > that way if we break it in qemu's code test would catch the thing > > > Also the 0 for revision 1 is a little confusing, I feel the above > > definition is clearer. > that's confusion is in the spec, so we just mimic it, no need to add more on top To be more precise, there is a huge number of constants in ACPI such that adding defines for them all would be a huge burden, and will not make it easy to check values against the spec at all (case in point ACPI_RSDP_REV_2 is actually wrong, 2 is version 3 and up). Thus the preferred style is to add a comment near the value matching spec name verbatim, so one can copy it and look it up in the spec. Sometimes one needs to reference specific spec version. 0 /* Revision: ACPI version 1.0 */ and 1 /* Revision: ACPI 2.0 */ and 2 /* Revision: ACPI 3.0a */ For style consistency, if the value is used multiple times, we avoid duplication by using an inline function and not a macro. > > > > > > > > + > > > > /* Table structure from Linux kernel (the ACPI tables are under the > > > > BSD license) */ > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > > > > index 0835900052..2dad465ecf 100644 > > > > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > > > > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > > > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_power_button(Aml *scope) > > > > > > > > /* RSDP */ > > > > static void > > > > -build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, unsigned xsdt_tbl_offset) > > > > +build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, AcpiRsdpData *rsdp_data) > > > > { > > > > AcpiRsdpDescriptor *rsdp = acpi_data_push(rsdp_table, sizeof *rsdp); > > > > unsigned xsdt_pa_size = sizeof(rsdp->xsdt_physical_address); > > > > @@ -379,14 +379,14 @@ build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, unsigned xsdt_tbl_offset) > > > > true /* fseg memory */); > > > > > > > > memcpy(&rsdp->signature, "RSD PTR ", sizeof(rsdp->signature)); > > > > - memcpy(rsdp->oem_id, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, sizeof(rsdp->oem_id)); > > > > + memcpy(rsdp->oem_id, rsdp_data->oem_id, sizeof(rsdp->oem_id)); > > > > rsdp->length = cpu_to_le32(sizeof(*rsdp)); > > > > - rsdp->revision = 0x02; > > > > + rsdp->revision = rsdp_data->revision; > > > > > > > > /* Address to be filled by Guest linker */ > > > > bios_linker_loader_add_pointer(linker, > > > > ACPI_BUILD_RSDP_FILE, xsdt_pa_offset, xsdt_pa_size, > > > > - ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE, xsdt_tbl_offset); > > > > + ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE, *rsdp_data->xsdt_tbl_offset); > > > > > > > > /* Checksum to be filled by Guest linker */ > > > > bios_linker_loader_add_checksum(linker, ACPI_BUILD_RSDP_FILE, > > > > @@ -399,6 +399,20 @@ build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, unsigned xsdt_tbl_offset) > > > > (char *)&rsdp->extended_checksum - rsdp_table->data); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static void > > > > +init_rsdp_data(AcpiRsdpData *data, const char *oem_id, uint8_t revision, > > > > + unsigned *rsdt_offset, unsigned *xsdt_offset) > > > > +{ > > > > + /* Caller must provide an OEM ID */ > > > > + g_assert(oem_id); > > > > + g_assert(strlen(oem_id) >= 6); > > > > + > > > > + memcpy(data->oem_id, oem_id, 6); > > > > + data->revision = revision; > > > > + data->rsdt_tbl_offset = rsdt_offset; > > > > + data->xsdt_tbl_offset = xsdt_offset; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static void > > > > build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > > > > { > > > > @@ -810,6 +824,7 @@ void virt_acpi_build(VirtMachineState *vms, AcpiBuildTables *tables) > > > > GArray *table_offsets; > > > > unsigned dsdt, xsdt; > > > > GArray *tables_blob = tables->table_data; > > > > + AcpiRsdpData rsdp; > > > s/rsdp/rsdp_info/ > > > > > > > > > > > table_offsets = g_array_new(false, true /* clear */, > > > > sizeof(uint32_t)); > > > > @@ -857,7 +872,9 @@ void virt_acpi_build(VirtMachineState *vms, AcpiBuildTables *tables) > > > > build_xsdt(tables_blob, tables->linker, table_offsets, NULL, NULL); > > > > > > > > /* RSDP is in FSEG memory, so allocate it separately */ > > > > - build_rsdp(tables->rsdp, tables->linker, xsdt); > > > > + init_rsdp_data(&rsdp, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, ACPI_RSDP_REV_2, > > > > + NULL, &xsdt); > > > It would be more concise to use declarative style without extra clutter: > > > > > > - init_rsdp_data(&rsdp, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, ACPI_RSDP_REV_2, > > > - NULL, &xsdt); > > > - build_rsdp(tables->rsdp, tables->linker, &rsdp); > > > + { > > > + AcpiRsdpData rsdp = { > > > + .revision = 2, > > > + .oem_id = ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, > > > + .xsdt_tbl_offset = &xsdt, > > > + .rsdt_tbl_offset = NULL, > > > + }; > > > + build_rsdp(tables->rsdp, tables->linker, &rsdp); > > > + } > > 2 things here, imo: > > > > - This is not more concise. > with function, one have to jump to it's definition/body to find out what > each argument is, with declaration + initialization inplace it's clear > what values mean as you see fields right there as well. > > If it's simple structure it is clearer to use initializer, instead of > wrapper helper. With complex structure it could be other way around. > > > - It's code duplication as almost the same snippet is going to be used > > for i386/acpi-build.c > the same goes for init_rsdp_data(...), the only difference > the declaration isn't folded in 2 lines to be more readable and there is > boiler plate helper function adds. > > > > > Cheers, > > Samuel. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRqUy-00011G-2C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRqUu-0001v6-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:26:30 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20181127221515-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20181126162942.21258-1-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20181126162942.21258-5-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20181127162551.29608eeb@redhat.com> <20181127154218.GA5677@caravaggio> <20181127172749.75a036b4@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181127172749.75a036b4@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/8] hw: arm: Carry RSDP specific data through AcpiRsdpData List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Igor Mammedov Cc: Samuel Ortiz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Shannon Zhao , Laurent Vivier , Richard Henderson , Paolo Bonzini , Ben Warren , Thomas Huth , Marcel Apfelbaum , Eduardo Habkost On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:27:49PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:42:18 +0100 > Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > Hi Igor, > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:25:51PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:29:37 +0100 > > > Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > > > > > That will allow us to generalize the ARM build_rsdp() routine to support > > > > both legacy RSDP (The current i386 implementation) and extended RSDP > > > > (The ARM implementation). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz > > > > --- > > > > include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h > > > > index af8e023968..e7fd24c6c5 100644 > > > > --- a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h > > > > +++ b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ struct AcpiRsdpDescriptor { /* Root System Descriptor Pointer */ > > > > } QEMU_PACKED; > > > > typedef struct AcpiRsdpDescriptor AcpiRsdpDescriptor; > > > > > > > > +typedef struct AcpiRsdpData { > > > > + uint8_t oem_id[6]; /* OEM identification */ > > > > + uint8_t revision; /* Must be 0 for 1.0, 2 for 2.0 */ > > > > + > > > > + unsigned *rsdt_tbl_offset; > > > > + unsigned *xsdt_tbl_offset; > > > > +} AcpiRsdpData; > > > > + > > > > > > > +#define ACPI_RSDP_REV_1 0 > > > > +#define ACPI_RSDP_REV_2 2 > > > it's one time used spec defined values so just use values directly > > > in place with a comment, so reader won't have to jump around code > > > when comparing to spec. > > It's also used in the ACPI tests fix patch. > it's better to use in test it's own version (we just opencode them there) > see fadt_fetch_facs_and_dsdt_ptrs()/sanitize_fadt_ptrs() > same applies for length. > that way if we break it in qemu's code test would catch the thing > > > Also the 0 for revision 1 is a little confusing, I feel the above > > definition is clearer. > that's confusion is in the spec, so we just mimic it, no need to add more on top To be more precise, there is a huge number of constants in ACPI such that adding defines for them all would be a huge burden, and will not make it easy to check values against the spec at all (case in point ACPI_RSDP_REV_2 is actually wrong, 2 is version 3 and up). Thus the preferred style is to add a comment near the value matching spec name verbatim, so one can copy it and look it up in the spec. Sometimes one needs to reference specific spec version. 0 /* Revision: ACPI version 1.0 */ and 1 /* Revision: ACPI 2.0 */ and 2 /* Revision: ACPI 3.0a */ For style consistency, if the value is used multiple times, we avoid duplication by using an inline function and not a macro. > > > > > > > > + > > > > /* Table structure from Linux kernel (the ACPI tables are under the > > > > BSD license) */ > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > > > > index 0835900052..2dad465ecf 100644 > > > > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > > > > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > > > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_power_button(Aml *scope) > > > > > > > > /* RSDP */ > > > > static void > > > > -build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, unsigned xsdt_tbl_offset) > > > > +build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, AcpiRsdpData *rsdp_data) > > > > { > > > > AcpiRsdpDescriptor *rsdp = acpi_data_push(rsdp_table, sizeof *rsdp); > > > > unsigned xsdt_pa_size = sizeof(rsdp->xsdt_physical_address); > > > > @@ -379,14 +379,14 @@ build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, unsigned xsdt_tbl_offset) > > > > true /* fseg memory */); > > > > > > > > memcpy(&rsdp->signature, "RSD PTR ", sizeof(rsdp->signature)); > > > > - memcpy(rsdp->oem_id, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, sizeof(rsdp->oem_id)); > > > > + memcpy(rsdp->oem_id, rsdp_data->oem_id, sizeof(rsdp->oem_id)); > > > > rsdp->length = cpu_to_le32(sizeof(*rsdp)); > > > > - rsdp->revision = 0x02; > > > > + rsdp->revision = rsdp_data->revision; > > > > > > > > /* Address to be filled by Guest linker */ > > > > bios_linker_loader_add_pointer(linker, > > > > ACPI_BUILD_RSDP_FILE, xsdt_pa_offset, xsdt_pa_size, > > > > - ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE, xsdt_tbl_offset); > > > > + ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE, *rsdp_data->xsdt_tbl_offset); > > > > > > > > /* Checksum to be filled by Guest linker */ > > > > bios_linker_loader_add_checksum(linker, ACPI_BUILD_RSDP_FILE, > > > > @@ -399,6 +399,20 @@ build_rsdp(GArray *rsdp_table, BIOSLinker *linker, unsigned xsdt_tbl_offset) > > > > (char *)&rsdp->extended_checksum - rsdp_table->data); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static void > > > > +init_rsdp_data(AcpiRsdpData *data, const char *oem_id, uint8_t revision, > > > > + unsigned *rsdt_offset, unsigned *xsdt_offset) > > > > +{ > > > > + /* Caller must provide an OEM ID */ > > > > + g_assert(oem_id); > > > > + g_assert(strlen(oem_id) >= 6); > > > > + > > > > + memcpy(data->oem_id, oem_id, 6); > > > > + data->revision = revision; > > > > + data->rsdt_tbl_offset = rsdt_offset; > > > > + data->xsdt_tbl_offset = xsdt_offset; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static void > > > > build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > > > > { > > > > @@ -810,6 +824,7 @@ void virt_acpi_build(VirtMachineState *vms, AcpiBuildTables *tables) > > > > GArray *table_offsets; > > > > unsigned dsdt, xsdt; > > > > GArray *tables_blob = tables->table_data; > > > > + AcpiRsdpData rsdp; > > > s/rsdp/rsdp_info/ > > > > > > > > > > > table_offsets = g_array_new(false, true /* clear */, > > > > sizeof(uint32_t)); > > > > @@ -857,7 +872,9 @@ void virt_acpi_build(VirtMachineState *vms, AcpiBuildTables *tables) > > > > build_xsdt(tables_blob, tables->linker, table_offsets, NULL, NULL); > > > > > > > > /* RSDP is in FSEG memory, so allocate it separately */ > > > > - build_rsdp(tables->rsdp, tables->linker, xsdt); > > > > + init_rsdp_data(&rsdp, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, ACPI_RSDP_REV_2, > > > > + NULL, &xsdt); > > > It would be more concise to use declarative style without extra clutter: > > > > > > - init_rsdp_data(&rsdp, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, ACPI_RSDP_REV_2, > > > - NULL, &xsdt); > > > - build_rsdp(tables->rsdp, tables->linker, &rsdp); > > > + { > > > + AcpiRsdpData rsdp = { > > > + .revision = 2, > > > + .oem_id = ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, > > > + .xsdt_tbl_offset = &xsdt, > > > + .rsdt_tbl_offset = NULL, > > > + }; > > > + build_rsdp(tables->rsdp, tables->linker, &rsdp); > > > + } > > 2 things here, imo: > > > > - This is not more concise. > with function, one have to jump to it's definition/body to find out what > each argument is, with declaration + initialization inplace it's clear > what values mean as you see fields right there as well. > > If it's simple structure it is clearer to use initializer, instead of > wrapper helper. With complex structure it could be other way around. > > > - It's code duplication as almost the same snippet is going to be used > > for i386/acpi-build.c > the same goes for init_rsdp_data(...), the only difference > the declaration isn't folded in 2 lines to be more readable and there is > boiler plate helper function adds. > > > > > Cheers, > > Samuel.