On 28 July 2015 at 11:27, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote:> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:12:33AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 28 July 2015 at 11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:44:02AM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote: >> >> Added the match table and pointers for ACPI probing to the driver. >> >> >> >> This uses the same identifier for virt devices as being used for qemu >> >> ARM64 ACPI support. >> >> >> >> http://git.linaro.org/people/shannon.zhao/qemu.git/commit/d0bf1955a3ecbab4b51d46f8c5dda02b7e14a17e >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory at linaro.org>>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >> >> +static const struct acpi_device_id virtio_mmio_acpi_match[] = { >> >> + { "LNRO0005", }, >> >> + { } >> >> +}; >> > >> > Hmm - we have reserved QEMUXXXX in ASWG explicitly for this purpose. >> > >> > Pater - do you think it's a good idea to change this before QEMU 2.4 >> > is released? >> >> Shannon's call, I guess. I don't know enough about ACPI to say. >> I thought these ACPI IDs were already fixed because they were >> what the kernel was looking for...> Apparently not :)Mmm. I'm not terribly happy about stuff being in QEMU before the ACPI spec for it has been finalised. We should not be picking stuff randomly on the fly... If we want to fix the ACPI IDs QEMU is using for 2.4 then we really need to do that now (ie within the next day or two). -- PMM
On 28 July 2015 at 21:12, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell at linaro.org> wrote:> On 28 July 2015 at 11:27, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:12:33AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 28 July 2015 at 11:08, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:44:02AM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote: >>> >> Added the match table and pointers for ACPI probing to the driver. >>> >> >>> >> This uses the same identifier for virt devices as being used for qemu >>> >> ARM64 ACPI support. >>> >> >>> >> http://git.linaro.org/people/shannon.zhao/qemu.git/commit/d0bf1955a3ecbab4b51d46f8c5dda02b7e14a17e >>> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory at linaro.org> > >>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >>> >> +static const struct acpi_device_id virtio_mmio_acpi_match[] = { >>> >> + { "LNRO0005", }, >>> >> + { } >>> >> +}; >>> > >>> > Hmm - we have reserved QEMUXXXX in ASWG explicitly for this purpose. >>> > >>> > Pater - do you think it's a good idea to change this before QEMU 2.4 >>> > is released? >>> >>> Shannon's call, I guess. I don't know enough about ACPI to say. >>> I thought these ACPI IDs were already fixed because they were >>> what the kernel was looking for... > >> Apparently not :) > > Mmm. I'm not terribly happy about stuff being in QEMU before the > ACPI spec for it has been finalised. We should not be picking > stuff randomly on the fly... > > If we want to fix the ACPI IDs QEMU is using for 2.4 then we > really need to do that now (ie within the next day or two). >It is upto the owner of the QEMU prefix to allocate numbers. This is not an issue for ACPI spec at all. Graeme
On 28 July 2015 at 21:28, G Gregory <graeme.gregory at linaro.org> wrote:> On 28 July 2015 at 21:12, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell at linaro.org> wrote: >> Mmm. I'm not terribly happy about stuff being in QEMU before the >> ACPI spec for it has been finalised. We should not be picking >> stuff randomly on the fly... >> >> If we want to fix the ACPI IDs QEMU is using for 2.4 then we >> really need to do that now (ie within the next day or two). >> > It is upto the owner of the QEMU prefix to allocate numbers. This is > not an issue for ACPI spec at all.I mean "the specification for how this device should be advertised in an ACPI table". I don't care whether that's an official ACPI consortium thing or something less official. The table is constructed by QEMU and read by the kernel (and possibly also by UEFI?), so everybody needs to agree on what the string is... thanks -- PMM