On 09/03/15 18:33, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 03.09.2015 18:37, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > [] >> Actually, 6 + 4 + 4 = 14, so OemID and OemTableID. But, you are right, I >> was working off the commit message & comments only, not the actual >> amount of bytes copied. >> >> This ties down both OemID and OemTableId, between all of RSDT, SLIC, and >> FADT. Since >> - I argue against exposing a generic oem_table_id on the command >> line (unlike oem_id), >> - and I also find that an oem_table_id "map" would be overkill, >> >> I think it follows that I can only ask for the special SLIC-handling >> logic already visible in your patch. "User passed in SLIC --> adapt RSDT >> and FADT." That is, it is already user-controlled. > > It might be useful to have it controllable by user in other cases too. > But I don't have any usage case for that. > >> (The FADT change will ensure that OVMF will update the RSDT that *it* >> installs.) >> >> This is just my preference, of course... But at least it doesn't seem to >> conflict with Michael's! :) > > Yes, it might just work. Especially since in case when SLIC is specified, > the oem_table&Co should come from SLIC, not forcing user to specify them > on command line. Command line can be used anyway, with the default value > coming from slic if it is provided. > > BTW, I updated the patch for 2.4 a few days ago, it is hackish as I wanted > to touch as few files as possible. > > And BTW2, the code in acpi/core.c uses its own local definition of ACPI > table data structures, instead of using common code from acpi.h... ;)
True, but the SDT header struct in "hw/acpi/core.c" (from 2009-2013) seems to predate the same in "include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h" (from Summer 2013) by quite a few years! :) > Thanks, > > /mjt >
