On 6 August 2015 at 14:19, Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 2015/8/6 20:28, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: >>> >So, this _ADR entry is only consumed by a set of not-widely-circulated >>> >patches for the Linux kernel. And while the ARM Server Base Boot >>> >Requirements specification mandates SPCR, it does not mandate this _ADR >>> >entry. >>> > >>> >In the interest of not propagating non-standard extensions, I would be >>> >really happy if we could consider dropping this from 2.4. >>> >I do realize that this is a completely unreasonable request this late >>> >in the release process, but I only spotted this yesterday, and it is a >>> >very isolated change with very quantifiable effects. >>> > >>> >The patch >>> > athttps://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/leg-kernel.git/commitdiff/46eeec7b7332bdd104941703696d3812afd934c8 >>> >converts the non-upstream kernel SPCR handling code to use the _CRS >>> >information instead. >> >> Grr... So when I saw how the kernel (the original non-upstream patch) >> was using ADR, I presumed that that was a documented behavior. I guess >> I should have confirmed that... >> >> While the kernel change makes sense, I'm not sure we want this QEMU >> patch, as there*are* kernels already using ADR. In the least I wouldn't >> want to get burned twice, so I'd prefer to see the SPCR code actually >> get into Linux first this time. That would also allow us to point at >> something when we start breaking guests. > > > I agree. It would be better after the kernel patch get into upstream kernel.
This kind of thing is why I was sceptical about accepting the ACPI support patches before the ACPI code for everything went into the upstream kernel :-( -- PMM
