From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38961) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhILn-0000u7-20 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:27:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhILh-0005xm-Qo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:27:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39357) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhILh-0005x4-MX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:27:13 -0400 References: <1443389342-2186-1-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <1443389342-2186-4-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <560A6904.3010301@redhat.com> <20150929164607.GV2080@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> <560AC265.6020205@redhat.com> <20150929171953.GW2080@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> <560ACA47.2090909@redhat.com> <20150930001841.GA31367@foober.ini.cmu.edu> <560BDD19.9070100@redhat.com> <20150930141631.GE23832@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <560BF138.5060007@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:27:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150930141631.GE23832@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 3/5] acpi: pc: add fw_cfg device node to ssdt List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Gabriel L. Somlo" Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, drjones@redhat.com, matt.fleming@intel.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, leif.lindholm@linaro.org, kevin@koconnor.net, kraxel@redhat.com, zhaoshenglong@huawei.com, imammedo@redhat.com, markmb@redhat.com, Laszlo Ersek , rth@twiddle.net On 30/09/2015 16:16, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: >>> > > Yes, we're OK. Throughout it all I *meant* to write 0x0B (bee), but my >>> > > brain sometimes mistakenly makes me write 0x08 (eight) instead. Sorry for >>> > > the confusion... :) >> > >> > IIRC from the pvpanic trainwreck, Windows XP and 2003 always complain >> > even for 0x0B about a missing driver. > Don't have 2003, but dug up and started my old xp_sp3 image, and > Device Manager only complains when _STA defaults to 0x0f (i.e. when > I omit generating it in aml completely). > > With _STA set to 0x0b (like in the latest version of the patch), the > fw_cfg device does not show up with a missing device complaint on xp. Great, thanks for testing. Paolo