From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1InIAE-0004Zh-Qx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:19:38 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1InIAC-0004XK-U4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:19:38 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InIAC-0004X7-ML
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:19:36 -0400
Received: from hansmi.home.forkbomb.ch ([213.144.146.165])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <qemu@hansmi.ch>) id 1InIAB-0007dc-VK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:19:36 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:19:32 +0100
From: Michael Hanselmann <qemu@hansmi.ch>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Update i440FX/PIIX3 emulation
Message-ID: <20071031181932.GB30951@hansmi.ch>
References: <20071024224222.GB9226@hansmi.ch>
	<20071031002554.GB20915@hansmi.ch> <47288050.3010108@qumranet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47288050.3010108@qumranet.com>
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
Cc: igor.lvovsky@qumranet.com

Hi Avi

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:17:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> --- bios/acpi-dsdt.dsl	28 Sep 2006 18:56:20 -0000	1.1
>> +++ bios/acpi-dsdt.dsl	30 Oct 2007 23:52:22 -0000
>> @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ DefinitionBlock (
>>                  Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized)
>>                  {
>>                      Store (0x0B, Local0)
>> -                    If (And (0x80, PRQ0, Local1))
>> +                    If (And (0x80, PRQ0, Local0))
>>                      {
>>                           Store (0x09, Local0)
>>                      }

> Can you explain this?
>
> The original code seems to return either 0xb (present, enabled, functional) 
> or 0x9 (present, functional).  The new code seems to return either 0x9 
> (present, functional) or 0 (if PRQ0 had its seventh bit clear).
>
> Am I reading the code incorrectly?

It looks like you're correct. Here's the same function from a HP
Pavilion laptop:

    Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized)
    {
        If (And (PIRH, 0x80))
        {
            Return (0x09)
        }
        Return (0x0B)
    }

Basically this means I have to go back to debug this stuff.

Sorry for the false alarm,
Michael

-- 
http://hansmi.ch/