From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KXhj9-0006S0-Md
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:27:47 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KXhj8-0006Re-VC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:27:47 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53939 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KXhj8-0006Rb-TT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:27:46 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:37088)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <herbszt@gmx.de>) id 1KXhj8-0001F3-Bi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:27:46 -0400
Message-ID: <024101c906e8$9baaef60$0201a8c0@zeug>
From: "Sebastian Herbszt" <herbszt@gmx.de>
References: <20080825095800.18703.30602.stgit@gleb-debian.qumranet.com.qumranet.com><20080825095830.18703.14942.stgit@gleb-debian.qumranet.com.qumranet.com><48B2BEFB.2060002@codemonkey.ws>
	<20080825142626.GP6192@minantech.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:26:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] Pass cpu speed into SM BIOS.
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Gleb Natapov wrote:

>> This is the incorrect frequency for a QEMU guest.  I'm not sure why this  
>> is included.  What does passing the frequency give us?
>>
> This is included for two reasons. First one is to demonstrate that
> proposed interface is extensible. Second is that Micrisoft SVVP test 
> requires this info (and much more) to be set in SMBIOS tables.

Can you elaborate a bit on the "and much more" part? Is this the stuff
described in "SMBIOS "Designed for Windows" Logo Requirements" at
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/SMBIOS.mspx ?

> Using real HW value seams to be better than just provide some default one.

What downside does using a default value have? On the upside this patch would
not be needed.

- Sebastian