From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 31/35] arm : acpi map status override table to dom0 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:45:29 +0800 Message-ID: <54DB24B9.7020304@linaro.org> References: <1423058539-26403-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org> <1423058539-26403-32-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org> <54D2FE96.9090900@linaro.org> <1423136865.24924.84.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1423136865.24924.84.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Parth Dixit Cc: tim@xen.org, Stefano Stabellini , Christoffer Dall , Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 05/02/2015 19:47, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 16:27 +0530, Parth Dixit wrote: >>>> + stao->header.length = sizeof(struct acpi_table_header) + 1; >>>> + stao->header.checksum = 0; >>>> + ACPI_MEMCPY(stao->header.oem_id, "LINARO", 6); >>>> + ACPI_MEMCPY(stao->header.oem_table_id, "RTSMVEV8", 8); >>> >>> >>> I though the plan was to use a Xen OEM ID? >> yes, but its not clear what should be used as xen oem id is not finalized yet. > > Are these IDs the ones defined for x86 in > tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/acpi2_0.h: > #define ACPI_OEM_ID "Xen" > #define ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID "HVM" > #define ACPI_OEM_REVISION 0 > > #define ACPI_CREATOR_ID ASCII32('H','V','M','L') /* HVMLoader */ > #define ACPI_CREATOR_REVISION 0 > > ? If so we should reuse them, although maybe not OEM_TABLE_ID and > CREATOR_ID since those are x86/HVM specific. I didn't know that HVMLoader was using one. "XenVMM" was decided for ARM (see see http://wiki.xenproject.org/mediawiki/images/c/c4/Xen-environment-table.pdf). Although, it would be good to have a single OEM ID for Xen project. > What is the process for assigning those? Given our unique OEM_ID are we > allowed to just declare them ourselves? Stefano sent an email to the ACPI guys to know the process. I guess the x86 one has not been declared? Regards, -- Julien Grall