From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48108) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z715m-0004mL-O6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:44:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z715j-0008Ub-Dg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:44:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34433) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z715j-0008UU-8B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:44:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:44:43 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20150622144216-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1432686576-14816-1-git-send-email-pcacjr@zytor.com> <1434933423-10496-1-git-send-email-pcacjr@zytor.com> <20150622104151-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <5587D93B.2060307@redhat.com> <20150622140648-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <02bf769ef17461985acbeef8f6d9bd82.squirrel@www.zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02bf769ef17461985acbeef8f6d9bd82.squirrel@www.zytor.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/3] ich9: add TCO interface emulation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paulo Alcantara Cc: Paolo Bonzini , seabios@seabios.org, Paulo Alcantara , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:36:57AM -0300, Paulo Alcantara wrote: > > On Mon, June 22, 2015 9:11 am, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:45:31AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 22/06/2015 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > Given that support is known to be partial, would it make sense > >> > to keep it disabled by default for 2.4? > >> > >> What is partial about it? > > > > Ow, looks like I didn't send out the response to the patch itself. > > Will do. > > > >> In fact, considering that q35 behavior is > >> still experimental it makes no sense to even make it conditional. > > > > I agree to this, though an option to disable seems useful for debugging, > > so I'm glad that Paulo implemented it. It's probably not strictly > > required to disable for old machine types, but why not. > > > >> We > >> discussed this on IRC and I was hoping to hear you reply "sorry, I was > >> wrong". Instead, I get this. > >> > >> Michael, I'm seriously getting annoyed by this behavior. Stop scaring > >> away contributors. > >> > >> Paolo > > > > Doing my best here, but I do think we need to be careful about merging > > things at this stage to avoid delaying the release. > > > >> > This way in 2.5 we won't need to add more flags to stay bug > >> compatible. > > Hi Michael, > > I have seen no use other than watchdog functionality of TCO. The reason I > wrote it was because I was working on an internal project that needed TCO > to generate SMI so that my registered SW SMI handler in firmware would get > executed. If, at that time, I had it supported on QEMU that would > certainly have saved a lot of time instead testing it on bare hardware :-) > > Given that, I think it's OK for me to enable it by default on pc-q35-2.4 > and later. > > Thanks, > > Paulo OK. Do you agree to move the ACPI bits to the SSDT, making it conditional on device being enabled? > -- > Paulo Alcantara, C.E.S.A.R > Speaking for myself only.