Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/6] i386: expose floppy-related objects in SSDT

[Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:26:26 +0300
Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:51:15PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:11:50 +0300
> > Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Windows on UEFI systems is only capable of detecting the presence and
> > > the type of floppy drives via corresponding ACPI objects.
> > > 
> > > Those objects are added in patch 5; the preceding ones pave the way to
> > > it, by making the necessary data public and by moving the whole
> > > floppy drive controller description into runtime-generated SSDT.
> > > 
> > > Note that the series conflicts with Igor's patchset for dynamic DSDT, in
> > > particular, with "[PATCH v2 27/51] pc: acpi: move FDC0 device from DSDT
> > > to SSDT"; I haven't managed to avoid that while trying to meet
> > > maintainer's comments.  
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Roman,
> > 
> > I've rebased/rewrote this series on top of current PCI tree.
> > Could you tell me if I should keep your Author/SoB on following
> > patches or change/drop it and if it's the case please specify what
> > should be changed:
> > 
> >   i386/acpi: make floppy controller object dynamic
> >       https://github.com/imammedo/qemu/commit/f0a3a4761f8f9698d0f0117d47e2353505de37bf
> >   i386: populate floppy drive information in DSDT
> >       https://github.com/imammedo/qemu/commit/97578d32e0a0b1cea0b6229f5ef51f8e104b7fdb  
> 
> Both patches look good to me (I just noticed an excessive "to" in the
> log message of the second one, in "QEMU doesn't _to_ provide those
> objects in its ACPI tables", you may want to delete it before
> propagating the patch upstream).
Just to confirm, so you are agree with me keeping you as Author on
above patches and your SoB on them as well?
 
> Now what are the plans re. stable branches?  I think the problem of the
> floppy being unavaliable in Windows on UEFI/OVMF justifies porting it
> there (we are interested, in particular, in stable-2.3), but I'm now
> confused as to what state to use as the base.
> 
> (As a matter of fact I'd been hoping that my patches made it in before
> your dynamic DSDT rework so the backport would be trivial cherry-pick;
> as this is no longer the case I'd appreciate your (or anybody else's)
> advice on how to move on with stable.)
Stable could use reviewed v5 if Michael agrees to take fix.

> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.