[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 05/16] libxl/arm: Construct ACPI RSDP table



Hi Shannon,

On 30/08/16 02:21, Shannon Zhao wrote:


On 2016/8/30 2:05, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Shannon,

On 25/08/2016 04:05, Shannon Zhao wrote:


On 2016/8/24 20:52, Wei Liu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:25:02PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>

Construct ACPI RSDP table and add a helper to calculate the ACPI table
checksum.

Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 38
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
index 6be9eb0..9432e44 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
@@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ extern const unsigned char dsdt_anycpu_arm[];
 _hidden
 extern const int dsdt_anycpu_arm_len;

+#define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM"
+#define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen "
+
Where do these come from? If they are from a spec, could you please add
a comment here?

Not from some spec. Just fake a OEM for these tables like the
ACPI_OEM_ID, ACPI_CREATOR_ID used by x86.

In this case, why don't we re-use the one from x86?

While the ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID and ACPI_CREATOR_ID of x86 are HVM specific,
I don't think it's proper for ARM.

IIRC we have an OEM ID and Creator ID reserved for Xen. Stefano can you confirm?

In any case, it would be better if we re-use the existing one. It does not hurt to use a different name. For instance the signature of the MADT table is "APIC" with is x86 specific...

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.