From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35491) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0qgh-0006Db-1n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 09:30:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0qgc-0003Pw-NG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 09:29:57 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]:35577) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0qgc-0003Ps-J5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 09:29:54 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x19so119154697oix.2 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 06:29:54 -0700 (PDT) References: <1462995966-1184-1-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org> <1462995966-1184-7-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org> <20160512073315.GA22625@redhat.com> From: Corey Minyard Message-ID: <57348551.4060300@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:29:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160512073315.GA22625@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/7] ipmi: Fix SSIF ACPI handling to use the right CRS List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , minyard@acm.org Cc: Igor Mammedov , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 05/12/2016 02:33 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:46:05PM -0500, minyard@acm.org wrote: >> From: Corey Minyard >> >> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard >> --- >> hw/acpi/ipmi.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/acpi/ipmi.c b/hw/acpi/ipmi.c >> index 731f4ad..c187fdd 100644 >> --- a/hw/acpi/ipmi.c >> +++ b/hw/acpi/ipmi.c >> @@ -49,7 +49,9 @@ static Aml *aml_ipmi_crs(IPMIFwInfo *info) >> regspacing, info->register_length)); >> break; >> case IPMI_MEMSPACE_SMBUS: >> - aml_append(crs, aml_return(aml_int(info->base_address))); >> + aml_append(crs, aml_i2c_serial_bus_device(0, 100000, >> + info->base_address, >> + info->acpi_parent)); > Isn't this fairly new? If so using these opcodes > is likely to break some older guests. Maybe they already don't > work, but I'd like to see some explanation about that, > and what was tested. This is new with the 5.0 specification. I haven't done extensive testing on anything but Linux 3.10 and later. Well, I might have run 2.6.32, but I can't remember. I don't have the ability to test Windows. But isn't the idea of these definitions that they are ignored if the OS doesn't understand them? Otherwise you could never add anything. -corey >> break; >> default: >> abort(); >> -- >> 2.7.4