From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47734) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSNjU-0004Iv-8l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:10:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSNjQ-0007Pk-UD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:10:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:33567) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSNjQ-0007P6-PY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:10:04 -0400 Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so20283951pad.0 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55D5B585.6070307@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:09:57 +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> <20150820101821.GL10728@bivouac.eciton.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed 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: G Gregory , Leif Lindholm Cc: Peter Maydell , Andrew Jones , QEMU Developers , Al Stone On 2015/8/20 18:48, G Gregory wrote: > On 20 August 2015 at 11:18, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:24:39AM +0100, 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 presume my opinion is clear, but I'm cc:ing some of the Linaro ACPI >> team. >> >> Graeme, Al - the patch in question is: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel%40nongnu.org/msg314356.html >> > Using _ADR for a non enumerable bus is undefined behaviour in the ACPI > specification. > > How it is used in Redhats SPCR patch is IMO wrong becuase there is no > guarantee that _ADR will be defined for any MMIO device in DSDT. > > I believe QEMU should not follow this just to make a non upstreamed > Redhat patch work. > Yeah, but when will the right kernel patch be upstreamed? Do you have a plan for upstreaming it? Or it's on the list already? As said before, we can apply this patch after the kernel patch upstreamed. Thanks, -- Shannon