On 20 August 2015 at 22:54, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > If I understand correctly, then the concern is that vendors, ones which > use QEMU code as their specification, will start building ACPI tables > with ADR unnecessarily populated in the console uart's device table. > Actually, some vendors must have already been doing that, otherwise the > out-of-tree patches in RH's and Linaro's trees wouldn't have worked on > bare-metal. So, what is the problem with them doing it? Just wrong > because it's pointless?
Yeah, I don't think anybody's using QEMU as their model for writing firmware... > If I'm right about the concerns, then I don't see why we should rush > this QEMU change. Also, it would be much easier to apologize to the guest > kernels that the change will break, if we can point at an upstream patch > that they need to backport. I.e. I still vote that we wait for the kernel > patch to get upstream first. I think I agree with this. Please ping me and/or just resend the patch when the kernel fix has got into upstream. thanks -- PMM
