From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gIVxA-0007ZC-Al for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 05:41:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gIVx9-0002Dq-Ky for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 05:41:20 -0400 References: <20181101102303.16439-1-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20181101102303.16439-7-sameo@linux.intel.com> From: Shannon Zhao Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 17:41:00 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181101102303.16439-7-sameo@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-arm] [PATCH v4 06/23] hw: acpi: Generalize AML build routines List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Samuel Ortiz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Yang Zhong , Peter Maydell , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini , Marcel Apfelbaum , Igor Mammedov , "open list:ARM ACPI Subsystem" , Richard Henderson On 2018/11/1 18:22, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > index 0a6a88380a..6822ee4eaa 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > } > > static void > -build_mcfg(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > +virt_build_mcfg(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > { > AcpiTableMcfg *mcfg; > const MemMapEntry *memmap = vms->memmap; > @@ -791,7 +791,7 @@ void virt_acpi_build(VirtMachineState *vms, AcpiBuildTables *tables) > build_gtdt(tables_blob, tables->linker, vms); > > acpi_add_table(table_offsets, tables_blob); > - build_mcfg(tables_blob, tables->linker, vms); > + virt_build_mcfg(tables_blob, tables->linker, vms); Looks like it doesn't share build_mcfg with x86. Why you still export the x86 build_mcfg and introduce this unnecessary change? Thanks, Shannon