* Re: OVMF and PCI0 UID [not found] <56E4DCD4-DBA1-4A41-8568-1CBBB37ED320@protonmail.com> @ 2020-07-20 21:25 ` Laszlo Ersek 2020-07-21 6:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Laszlo Ersek @ 2020-07-20 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: vit9696; +Cc: Michael Tsirkin, Igor Mammedov, mhaeuser, qemu devel list Hi Vitaly, adding Igor, Michael, Marcel, and qemu-devel. On 07/20/20 11:06, vit9696 wrote: > Hello, > > I discovered an issue with inconsistent QEMU/OVMF device paths, and > while I am unsure whether directing this e-mail is appropriate to you, > I believe that you likely have the contacts you could forward this > e-mail to. > > macOS uses ACPI UIDs to build the DevicePath for NVRAM boot options, > while OVMF firmware gets them via an internal channel through QEMU. > Due to a bug in QEMU (or OVMF) currently UEFI firmware and ACPI have > different values, and this makes the underlying operating system > unable to report its boot option. > > The particular node in question is the primary PciRoot (PCI0 in ACPI), > which for some reason gets assigned 1 in ACPI UID and 0 in the > DevicePath. To me this looks like a bug here: > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/8f06f22/hw/i386/acpi-build.c#L1511-L1515 > Which does not correspond to the primary PCI identifier here: > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/5a79d10/hw/pci/pci.c#L160-L162 > > Reference with the device paths, OVMF startup logs, and ACPI table > dumps (SysReport): > https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050 > > Would you be able to forward this to the right people or perhaps keep > an eye on the issue itself? I think you are right. In UEFI v2.8, section "10.4.2 Rules with ACPI _HID and _UID" ends with the paragraph, Root PCI bridges will use the plug and play ID of PNP0A03, This will be stored in the ACPI Device Path _HID field, or in the Expanded ACPI Device Path _CID field to match the ACPI name space. The _UID in the ACPI Device Path structure must match the _UID in the ACPI name space. (See especially the last sentence.) Considering *extra* root bridges / root buses (with bus number > 0), QEMU's ACPI generator actually does the right thing; since QEMU commit c96d9286a6d7 ("i386/acpi-build: more traditional _UID and _HID for PXB root buses", 2015-06-11). However, the _UID values for root bridge zero (on both i440fx and q35) have always been "wrong" (from UEFI perspective), going back in QEMU to commit 74523b850189 ("i386: add ACPI table files from seabios", 2013-10-14). Even in SeaBIOS, these _UID values have always been 1; see commit a4d357638c57 ("Port rombios32 code from bochs-bios.", 2008-03-08) for i440fx, and commit ecbe3fd61511 ("seabios: q35: add dsdt", 2012-12-01) for q35. Does the following patch work for you? (I can see you proposed the same in <https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050#issuecomment-660734139>) > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index b7bcbbbb2a35..7a5a8b3521b0 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -1496,9 +1496,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > sb_scope = aml_scope("_SB"); > dev = aml_device("PCI0"); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A03"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(sb_scope, dev); > aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); > > build_hpet_aml(dsdt); > @@ -1511,9 +1511,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > dev = aml_device("PCI0"); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A08"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A03"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(dev, build_q35_osc_method()); > aml_append(sb_scope, dev); > aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); If it does, I suggest submitting the above patch to qemu-devel, and/or filing a bug for upstream QEMU at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/>. (Note: I didn't even compile the above change.) Thanks Laszlo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: OVMF and PCI0 UID 2020-07-20 21:25 ` OVMF and PCI0 UID Laszlo Ersek @ 2020-07-21 6:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2020-07-21 9:24 ` vit9696 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2020-07-21 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laszlo Ersek; +Cc: Igor Mammedov, mhaeuser, vit9696, qemu devel list On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi Vitaly, > > adding Igor, Michael, Marcel, and qemu-devel. > > On 07/20/20 11:06, vit9696 wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I discovered an issue with inconsistent QEMU/OVMF device paths, and > > while I am unsure whether directing this e-mail is appropriate to you, > > I believe that you likely have the contacts you could forward this > > e-mail to. > > > > macOS uses ACPI UIDs to build the DevicePath for NVRAM boot options, > > while OVMF firmware gets them via an internal channel through QEMU. > > Due to a bug in QEMU (or OVMF) currently UEFI firmware and ACPI have > > different values, and this makes the underlying operating system > > unable to report its boot option. > > > > The particular node in question is the primary PciRoot (PCI0 in ACPI), > > which for some reason gets assigned 1 in ACPI UID and 0 in the > > DevicePath. To me this looks like a bug here: > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/8f06f22/hw/i386/acpi-build.c#L1511-L1515 > > Which does not correspond to the primary PCI identifier here: > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/5a79d10/hw/pci/pci.c#L160-L162 > > > > Reference with the device paths, OVMF startup logs, and ACPI table > > dumps (SysReport): > > https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050 > > > > Would you be able to forward this to the right people or perhaps keep > > an eye on the issue itself? > > I think you are right. > > In UEFI v2.8, section "10.4.2 Rules with ACPI _HID and _UID" ends with > the paragraph, > > Root PCI bridges will use the plug and play ID of PNP0A03, This will > be stored in the ACPI Device Path _HID field, or in the Expanded > ACPI Device Path _CID field to match the ACPI name space. The _UID > in the ACPI Device Path structure must match the _UID in the ACPI > name space. > > (See especially the last sentence.) > > Considering *extra* root bridges / root buses (with bus number > 0), > QEMU's ACPI generator actually does the right thing; since QEMU commit > c96d9286a6d7 ("i386/acpi-build: more traditional _UID and _HID for PXB > root buses", 2015-06-11). > > However, the _UID values for root bridge zero (on both i440fx and q35) > have always been "wrong" (from UEFI perspective), going back in QEMU to > commit 74523b850189 ("i386: add ACPI table files from seabios", > 2013-10-14). > > Even in SeaBIOS, these _UID values have always been 1; see commit > a4d357638c57 ("Port rombios32 code from bochs-bios.", 2008-03-08) for > i440fx, and commit ecbe3fd61511 ("seabios: q35: add dsdt", 2012-12-01) > for q35. > > Does the following patch work for you? (I can see you proposed the same > in > <https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050#issuecomment-660734139>) > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > > index b7bcbbbb2a35..7a5a8b3521b0 100644 > > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > > @@ -1496,9 +1496,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > > sb_scope = aml_scope("_SB"); > > dev = aml_device("PCI0"); > > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A03"))); > > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > > - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); > > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); > > aml_append(sb_scope, dev); > > aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); > > > > build_hpet_aml(dsdt); > > @@ -1511,9 +1511,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > > dev = aml_device("PCI0"); > > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A08"))); > > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A03"))); > > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > > - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); > > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); > > aml_append(dev, build_q35_osc_method()); > > aml_append(sb_scope, dev); > > aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); > > If it does, I suggest submitting the above patch to qemu-devel, and/or > filing a bug for upstream QEMU at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/>. Or even just reporting whether the above helps you, we can take it from there. > (Note: I didn't even compile the above change.) > > Thanks > Laszlo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: OVMF and PCI0 UID 2020-07-21 6:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2020-07-21 9:24 ` vit9696 2020-07-22 13:53 ` vit9696 via 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: vit9696 @ 2020-07-21 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin, Laszlo Ersek Cc: mhaeuser, Igor Mammedov, Marcel Apfelbaum, qemu devel list [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5700 bytes --] Thank you, we will provide an update whether this solves the problem. Besides, this is not the only case where UIDs are wrong for the PCI bus. In hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c there is the following code: Aml *dev = aml_device("%s", "PCI0"); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("PNP0A08"))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CID", aml_string("PNP0A03"))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_SEG", aml_int(0))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_BBN", aml_int(0))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_string("PCI0"))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STR", aml_unicode("PCIe 0 Device"))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CCA", aml_int(1))); https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/2c1fb4d/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c#L168-L175 <https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/2c1fb4d/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c#L168-L175> It makes UID on ARM builds a string, which is certainly not expected. We do not have ARM test setups, but I hope this can be useful too. Best wishes, Vitaly > 21 июля 2020 г., в 09:58, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> написал(а): > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Hi Vitaly, >> >> adding Igor, Michael, Marcel, and qemu-devel. >> >> On 07/20/20 11:06, vit9696 wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I discovered an issue with inconsistent QEMU/OVMF device paths, and >>> while I am unsure whether directing this e-mail is appropriate to you, >>> I believe that you likely have the contacts you could forward this >>> e-mail to. >>> >>> macOS uses ACPI UIDs to build the DevicePath for NVRAM boot options, >>> while OVMF firmware gets them via an internal channel through QEMU. >>> Due to a bug in QEMU (or OVMF) currently UEFI firmware and ACPI have >>> different values, and this makes the underlying operating system >>> unable to report its boot option. >>> >>> The particular node in question is the primary PciRoot (PCI0 in ACPI), >>> which for some reason gets assigned 1 in ACPI UID and 0 in the >>> DevicePath. To me this looks like a bug here: >>> https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/8f06f22/hw/i386/acpi-build.c#L1511-L1515 >>> Which does not correspond to the primary PCI identifier here: >>> https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/5a79d10/hw/pci/pci.c#L160-L162 >>> >>> Reference with the device paths, OVMF startup logs, and ACPI table >>> dumps (SysReport): >>> https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050 >>> >>> Would you be able to forward this to the right people or perhaps keep >>> an eye on the issue itself? >> >> I think you are right. >> >> In UEFI v2.8, section "10.4.2 Rules with ACPI _HID and _UID" ends with >> the paragraph, >> >> Root PCI bridges will use the plug and play ID of PNP0A03, This will >> be stored in the ACPI Device Path _HID field, or in the Expanded >> ACPI Device Path _CID field to match the ACPI name space. The _UID >> in the ACPI Device Path structure must match the _UID in the ACPI >> name space. >> >> (See especially the last sentence.) >> >> Considering *extra* root bridges / root buses (with bus number > 0), >> QEMU's ACPI generator actually does the right thing; since QEMU commit >> c96d9286a6d7 ("i386/acpi-build: more traditional _UID and _HID for PXB >> root buses", 2015-06-11). >> >> However, the _UID values for root bridge zero (on both i440fx and q35) >> have always been "wrong" (from UEFI perspective), going back in QEMU to >> commit 74523b850189 ("i386: add ACPI table files from seabios", >> 2013-10-14). >> >> Even in SeaBIOS, these _UID values have always been 1; see commit >> a4d357638c57 ("Port rombios32 code from bochs-bios.", 2008-03-08) for >> i440fx, and commit ecbe3fd61511 ("seabios: q35: add dsdt", 2012-12-01) >> for q35. >> >> Does the following patch work for you? (I can see you proposed the same >> in >> <https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050#issuecomment-660734139>) >> >>> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c >>> index b7bcbbbb2a35..7a5a8b3521b0 100644 >>> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c >>> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c >>> @@ -1496,9 +1496,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, >>> sb_scope = aml_scope("_SB"); >>> dev = aml_device("PCI0"); >>> aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A03"))); >>> aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); >>> - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); >>> + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); >>> aml_append(sb_scope, dev); >>> aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); >>> >>> build_hpet_aml(dsdt); >>> @@ -1511,9 +1511,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, >>> dev = aml_device("PCI0"); >>> aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A08"))); >>> aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CID", aml_eisaid("PNP0A03"))); >>> aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); >>> - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); >>> + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); >>> aml_append(dev, build_q35_osc_method()); >>> aml_append(sb_scope, dev); >>> aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); >> >> If it does, I suggest submitting the above patch to qemu-devel, and/or >> filing a bug for upstream QEMU at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/>. > > Or even just reporting whether the above helps you, we can > take it from there. > >> (Note: I didn't even compile the above change.) >> >> Thanks >> Laszlo [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12429 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: OVMF and PCI0 UID 2020-07-21 9:24 ` vit9696 @ 2020-07-22 13:53 ` vit9696 via 2020-07-30 15:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: vit9696 via @ 2020-07-22 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin, Laszlo Ersek Cc: mhaeuser, Igor Mammedov, Marcel Apfelbaum, qemu devel list [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/html, Size: 12759 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: OVMF and PCI0 UID 2020-07-22 13:53 ` vit9696 via @ 2020-07-30 15:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2020-07-30 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: vit9696; +Cc: Igor Mammedov, mhaeuser, Laszlo Ersek, qemu devel list Thanks, I sent the patches on the list now! On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 01:53:23PM +0000, vit9696 via wrote: > Hello, > > We can confirm that the suggested change to zero UIDs resolves the problem. It > will be great if you could handle the rest as you see fit. Thank you! > > Best regards, > Vitaly > > > В вт, июля 21, 2020 в 12:24, vit9696 <vit9696@protonmail.com> пишет: > > Thank you, we will provide an update whether this solves the problem. > > Besides, this is not the only case where UIDs are wrong for the PCI bus. > In hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c there is the following code: > > Aml *dev = aml_device("%s", "PCI0"); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("PNP0A08"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CID", aml_string("PNP0A03"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_SEG", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_BBN", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_string("PCI0"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STR", aml_unicode("PCIe 0 Device"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CCA", aml_int(1))); > > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/2c1fb4d/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c# > L168-L175 > > It makes UID on ARM builds a string, which is certainly not expected. We do > not have ARM test setups, but I hope this can be useful too. > > Best wishes, > Vitaly > > > 21 июля 2020 г., в 09:58, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> написал > (а): > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Hi Vitaly, > > adding Igor, Michael, Marcel, and qemu-devel. > > On 07/20/20 11:06, vit9696 wrote: > > Hello, > > I discovered an issue with inconsistent QEMU/OVMF device paths, > and > while I am unsure whether directing this e-mail is appropriate > to you, > I believe that you likely have the contacts you could forward > this > e-mail to. > > macOS uses ACPI UIDs to build the DevicePath for NVRAM boot > options, > while OVMF firmware gets them via an internal channel through > QEMU. > Due to a bug in QEMU (or OVMF) currently UEFI firmware and ACPI > have > different values, and this makes the underlying operating > system > unable to report its boot option. > > The particular node in question is the primary PciRoot (PCI0 in > ACPI), > which for some reason gets assigned 1 in ACPI UID and 0 in the > DevicePath. To me this looks like a bug here: > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/8f06f22/hw/i386/acpi-build.c# > L1511-L1515 > Which does not correspond to the primary PCI identifier here: > https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/5a79d10/hw/pci/pci.c# > L160-L162 > > Reference with the device paths, OVMF startup logs, and ACPI > table > dumps (SysReport): > https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050 > > Would you be able to forward this to the right people or > perhaps keep > an eye on the issue itself? > > > I think you are right. > > In UEFI v2.8, section "10.4.2 Rules with ACPI _HID and _UID" ends > with > the paragraph, > > Root PCI bridges will use the plug and play ID of PNP0A03, This > will > be stored in the ACPI Device Path _HID field, or in the Expanded > ACPI Device Path _CID field to match the ACPI name space. The > _UID > in the ACPI Device Path structure must match the _UID in the > ACPI > name space. > > (See especially the last sentence.) > > Considering *extra* root bridges / root buses (with bus number > > 0), > QEMU's ACPI generator actually does the right thing; since QEMU > commit > c96d9286a6d7 ("i386/acpi-build: more traditional _UID and _HID for > PXB > root buses", 2015-06-11). > > However, the _UID values for root bridge zero (on both i440fx and > q35) > have always been "wrong" (from UEFI perspective), going back in > QEMU to > commit 74523b850189 ("i386: add ACPI table files from seabios", > 2013-10-14). > > Even in SeaBIOS, these _UID values have always been 1; see commit > a4d357638c57 ("Port rombios32 code from bochs-bios.", 2008-03-08) > for > i440fx, and commit ecbe3fd61511 ("seabios: q35: add dsdt", > 2012-12-01) > for q35. > > Does the following patch work for you? (I can see you proposed the > same > in > <https://github.com/acidanthera/bugtracker/issues/1050 > issuecomment-660734139>) > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index b7bcbbbb2a35..7a5a8b3521b0 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -1496,9 +1496,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker > *linker, > sb_scope = aml_scope("_SB"); > dev = aml_device("PCI0"); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid > ("PNP0A03"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(sb_scope, dev); > aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); > > build_hpet_aml(dsdt); > @@ -1511,9 +1511,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker > *linker, > dev = aml_device("PCI0"); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid > ("PNP0A08"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_CID", aml_eisaid > ("PNP0A03"))); > aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_ADR", aml_int(0))); > - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1))); > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0))); > aml_append(dev, build_q35_osc_method()); > aml_append(sb_scope, dev); > aml_append(dsdt, sb_scope); > > > If it does, I suggest submitting the above patch to qemu-devel, and > /or > filing a bug for upstream QEMU at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/ > >. > > > Or even just reporting whether the above helps you, we can > take it from there. > > > (Note: I didn't even compile the above change.) > > Thanks > Laszlo > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-07-30 16:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <56E4DCD4-DBA1-4A41-8568-1CBBB37ED320@protonmail.com>
2020-07-20 21:25 ` OVMF and PCI0 UID Laszlo Ersek
2020-07-21 6:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-07-21 9:24 ` vit9696
2020-07-22 13:53 ` vit9696 via
2020-07-30 15:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.