Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 14/20] hw/acpi/aml-build: Add aml_or() term

[Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com>]

On 2015/4/10 15:46, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:15:32 +0800
> Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>> > On 2015/4/9 21:35, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:03:46 +0800
>>> > > Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> > > 
>>>>> > >> > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > Add aml_or() term and make aml_and can take three args.
>>>>> > >> > Expose build_append_int_noprefix as it wiil be used by
>>>>> > >> > creating a buffer.
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com>
>>>>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>>>>> > >> > ---
>>>>> > >> >  hw/acpi/aml-build.c         | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> > >> >  hw/i386/acpi-build.c        |  2 +-
>>>>> > >> >  include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h |  4 +++-
>>>>> > >> >  3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > diff --git a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
>>>>> > >> > index 5a94fc9..312afb6 100644
>>>>> > >> > --- a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
>>>>> > >> > +++ b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
>>>>> > >> > @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static void build_extop_package(GArray
>>>>> > >> > *package, uint8_t op) build_prepend_byte(package, 0x5B); /*
>>>>> > >> > ExtOpPrefix */ }
>>>>> > >> >  
>>>>> > >> > -static void build_append_int_noprefix(GArray *table, uint64_t
>>>>> > >> > value, int size) +void build_append_int_noprefix(GArray *table,
>>>>> > >> > uint64_t value, int size) {
>>>>> > >> >      int i;
>>>>> > >> >  
>>>>> > >> > @@ -445,12 +445,30 @@ Aml *aml_store(Aml *val, Aml *target)
>>>>> > >> >  }
>>>>> > >> >  
>>>>> > >> >  /* ACPI 1.0b: 16.2.5.4 Type 2 Opcodes Encoding: DefAnd */
>>>>> > >> > -Aml *aml_and(Aml *arg1, Aml *arg2)
>>>>> > >> > +Aml *aml_and(Aml *arg1, Aml *arg2, Aml *arg3)
>>> > > I know that it's possible to Store inside of And(a, b, save_here)
>>> > > ASL op, but could you instead rewrite it to
>>> > > 
>>> > >  Store(And(a, b), save_here)
>>> > > 
>>> > > so it wouldn't clatter trivial  And(a,b) uses and drop this hunk.
>>> > > 
>> > Yes, we can use Store(And(a, b), save_here) but according to the SPEC
>> > the And op can have 3 args. We don't support it?
> I don't think that we should do it if it could be implemented
> using 2 already existing API calls to keep it simple and not to
> pollute code with extra ", NULL" argument in most cases.

Ok, will replace that.