Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] tools/libacpi: announce that PVHv2 has no CMOS RTC in FADT

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 02.12.16 at 14:48, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -436,7 +439,7 @@ struct acpi_20_slit {
>   * Table revision numbers.
>   */
>  #define ACPI_2_0_RSDP_REVISION 0x02
> -#define ACPI_2_0_FADT_REVISION 0x04
> +#define ACPI_2_0_FADT_REVISION 0x05

Do we really want to make this change unconditionally, rather than
only for PVH guests? I'm not sure which (older) OSes look at table
revisions (and may hence end up being incompatible), or whether
OSes may expect certain table versions together with certain base
ACPI versions. I think I had pointed out before that we really
should have the guest config file "acpi=" setting mean a version
number, and table revisions should then be selected according to
that base version. As that's a larger change, simply using one
fixed version for HVM and another for PVH would look fine to me.

Jan


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