From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54134) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1catM9-0007s2-6n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:10:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1catM6-0002QA-1F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:10:01 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50588) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1catM5-0002Q6-P1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:09:57 -0500 References: <1484739954-86833-1-git-send-email-phil@philjordan.eu> <20170118175335-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170118181918.783cb7bd@nial.brq.redhat.com> <20170131165802-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170131201333-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <1c8975af-866c-3e50-49c8-decba8d3deed@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:09:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: add reset register to fadt List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Phil Dennis-Jordan Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost On 02/06/17 17:44, Phil Dennis-Jordan wrote: > On 31 January 2017 at 20:08, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 01/31/17 19:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:28:57PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>> The ACPI 6.1 spec says, >>>> >>>> - DSDT: [...] If the X_DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this >>>> field must be zero. >>>> - X_DSDT: [...] If the DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this >>>> field must be zero. >>> >>> But that's only 6.1. 6.0 and earlier did not say this. >>> The errata they wanted to address was: >>> 1393 In FADT: if X_DSDT field is non-zero, DSDT >>> field should be ignored or deprecated >>> >>> I would class this as a spec bug. >>> >> >> Process-wise, that's not a bad idea; it could be the only way (or the >> best way) to argue for a corresponding change in edk2's >> EFI_ACPI_TABLE_PROTOCOL implementation >> (MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe). >> >> Do you want to raise this on the ASWG list? I vaguely recall that you >> subscribed; if not, I think you should be able to, as a Red Hatter >> . >> >> (I'd like to avoid being the middle man.) >> >> Hm... It seems that the "Adopter Membership" is free, which could be >> appropriate for individual observers: >> >> http://uefi.org/join >> http://members.uefi.org/home/ >> >> (Should Phil consider it.) > > To be honest, I have no idea - does the revelation of 5.1b's > introduction of the mutual exclusivity, and the fact that you've > written up an edk2 patch change anything? If my signing up for > membership will help with resolving the problem, I'm happy to do it, > I'm just lacking the context to know if this is the case - please let > me know. I'm neither encouraging you to, nor discouraging you from, joining the ASWG :) I just wanted to share the details that I managed to find, should you want to join the ASWG in order to (co-)champion the question (with Michael). For example, elsewhere you mention that Windows 10 "insist[s] on both DSDT and X_DSDT" [1]. That is somewhat in conflict with the most recent spec requirements that both fields be exclusive... If you've seen this happen first hand, that can be a strong argument to make. [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-February/007072.html Thanks, Laszlo