On 10/23/2015 03:08 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:03:24 +0200
> Matthias Lange <matthias.la...@kernkonzept.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch appends "ACPI0007" as the HID to each processor object.
>>
>> Until commit 20843d processor objects used to have a _HID. According
>> to the ACPI spec this is not required but removing it breaks systems
> Pls answer Michael's question about motivation of this patch.
> i.e. what guests it exactly breaks?
It broke the L4Re OS (specifically the mechanism to match ACPI drivers
to ACPI devices).
However, you can ignore this patch. I decided to change L4Re instead.
Best,
Matthias.
>> which relied on the HID. As it does no harm it is safe to add _HID
>> to processor objects and restore the old behaviour.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Lange <matthias.la...@kernkonzept.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> index 95e0c65..314cd0b 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
>> @@ -1153,6 +1153,9 @@ build_ssdt(GArray *table_data, GArray *linker,
>> for (i = 0; i < acpi_cpus; i++) {
>> dev = aml_processor(i, 0, 0, "CP%.02X", i);
>>
>> + /* for processor objects a _HID is not strictly required,
>> however it
>> + * does no harm and preserves compatibility with other BIOSes */
>> + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("ACPI0007")));
> Spec doesn't tell anything about using ACPI0007 with Processor statement,
> it's only mentioned in context of Device statement.
>
>> method = aml_method("_MAT", 0);
>> aml_append(method, aml_return(aml_call1("CPMA", aml_int(i))));
>> aml_append(dev, method);
