From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43818) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSEU6-0004qM-V6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:17:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSEU1-0004HG-Nr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:17:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:33557) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSEU1-0004Gu-J3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:17:33 -0400 Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so8948896pad.0 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55D52AA6.7060805@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:17:26 +0800 From: Shannon Zhao MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1438860267-3401-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20150806122803.GA3083@hawk.localdomain> <20150806125514.GU18160@bivouac.eciton.net> <20150806132525.GC3083@hawk.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: drop _ADR entry from SPCR List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Andrew Jones Cc: QEMU Developers , Leif Lindholm On 2015/8/20 8:24, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: >>>> In the least I wouldn't want to get burned twice, so I'd prefer to >>>> see the SPCR code actually get into Linux first this time. That >>>> would also allow us to point at something when we start breaking >>>> guests. >>> >>> So, if that's the way it has to be, that's the way it has to be. >>> I'd just prefer not having different pieces of firmware validating >>> different software behaviours for the same thing. >> >> Yeah, now it's messy. I'm actually OK with this QEMU patch, with regard >> to the downstream stuff that I'm involved with, but other downstreams >> may not be so flexible... We need Peter to chime in with his opinion, >> CCed. > > Could somebody who understands ACPI and the ramifications > here let me know if I should apply this patch, please? > (since we're now post-2.4) > I think we should hold back this patch until the kernel patch goes to upstream kernel. And without this patch I think it doesn't break anything. Thanks, -- Shannon