On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:51:41 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:47:20PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:35:46 -0400
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:15:42PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> > > > On 2025/4/23 20:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Alireza Sanaee
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> From: Yicong Yang <yangyic...@hisilicon.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The lastest ACPI spec 6.5 support PPTT revision 3. Update it
> > > > >> by handy. This is compatible with previous revision.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyic...@hisilicon.com>
> > > > >> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.san...@huawei.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't get it. Why are you updating it? Which features
> > > > > from the new one are you using?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > no new features for this patchset. considered updating it to
> > > > the latest ACPI spec since we're going to touch the PPTT table
> > > > and tested data.
> > >
> > > it's best to wait until there are actual features you need.
> > > don't make changes for the sake of changes, there's always
> > > some risk.
> >
> > Once we add the cache description (Ali's other set) can we make
> > sure we arbitrary decide to have separate cache structures. The
> > earlier table version allowed sharing of the entrees in the table
> > which then became not allowed in the newer spec. That will smooth
> > the path quite a bit and is a valid way to interpret the earlier
> > spec.
> >
> > If we do that, we can bring the IDs + the version update as a
> > precursor to MPAM support series. I don't think we need them until
> > that series (which is a way off being ready to merge yet!)
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> Why not. Sounds like all that can be made part of Ali's patchset?
> I am also ok to merge things gradually, as long as it's
> clear and documented in the commit log why we are
> making the change and where things are going.
>
> > >
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> hw/acpi/aml-build.c | 2 +-
> > > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> diff --git a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> > > > >> index 3010325ca423..e5401dfdb1a8 100644
> > > > >> --- a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> > > > >> +++ b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> > > > >> @@ -2155,7 +2155,7 @@ void build_pptt(GArray *table_data,
> > > > >> BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *ms, uint32_t pptt_start =
> > > > >> table_data->len; uint32_t root_offset;
> > > > >> int n;
> > > > >> - AcpiTable table = { .sig = "PPTT", .rev = 2,
> > > > >> + AcpiTable table = { .sig = "PPTT", .rev = 3,
> > > > >> .oem_id = oem_id, .oem_table_id =
> > > > >> oem_table_id };
> > > > >> acpi_table_begin(&table, table_data);
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> 2.34.1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
For this patchset, we eventually decided to rev down for now, on
another version sent earlier. We can always rev up when it is
absolutely necessary. So it is now rev == 2.
Thanks,
Alireza
