On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:24:39AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> So, if that's the way it has to be, that's the way it has to be. > >> I'd just prefer not having different pieces of firmware validating > >> different software behaviours for the same thing. > > > > Yeah, now it's messy. I'm actually OK with this QEMU patch, with regard > > to the downstream stuff that I'm involved with, but other downstreams > > may not be so flexible... We need Peter to chime in with his opinion, > > CCed. > > Could somebody who understands ACPI and the ramifications > here let me know if I should apply this patch, please? > (since we're now post-2.4)
I presume my opinion is clear, but I'm cc:ing some of the Linaro ACPI team. Graeme, Al - the patch in question is: https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel%40nongnu.org/msg314356.html / Leif
