On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:17:04 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:49:38PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:06:37 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:47:58PM +0000, Schmauss, Erik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:43 AM > > > > > To: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > > > > Cc: Schmauss, Erik <erik.schma...@intel.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; > > > > > Xiao > > > > > Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.e...@gmail.com>; Williams, Dan J > > > > > <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/nvdimm: remove forward name references > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:57:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:02:40 +0300 > > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > From spec > > > > > > DefOpRegion := OpRegionOp NameString RegionSpace RegionOffset > > > > > > RegionLen RegionOffset := TermArg => Integer TermArg := > > > > > > Type2Opcode > > > > > > | DataObject | ArgObj | LocalObj > > > > > > > > > > > > So named object is not accepted, > > > > > > > > > > might be worth checking what happens with actual OSPMs. > > > > > If it does happen to work, we can try tweaking the ACPI spec to allow > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > I'm looking at the ACPI6.2a spec on page 840 and it says > > > > TermArg := Type2Opcode | DataObject | Argterm |LocalTerm |NameString > > > > |SymbolicExpression > > > > > > Oh right, that's there since ACPI 6.0. > > Strange, I've rechecked AML definition of TermArg in 6.0 and 6.2a > > and it still says only > > > > TermArg := Type2Opcode | DataObject | ArgObj | LocalObj > > > > For 6.2a, I'm looking at chapter "20.2.5 Term Objects Encoding" > > where exactly do you guys see that longer variant? > > Oh interesting. That's in > 19.2.3 ASL Root and Secondary Terms > > How come it's not the same? bugs are everywhere, see "20.2.5 Term Objects Encoding" > > > > > > As usual, the issue is that > > > we can't easily check what does OSPM support. > > > This is really something worth fixing in the spec IMHO. > > > We could just try and test a bunch of guest OSPMs and if > > > they happen to work, switch to that. Lots of work for > > > uncertain benefit. > > I think some windows versions weren't happy with it when > > we were trying to use dynamic operation regions with offset > > as namestring. > > > Good to know, thanks. I'll try to retest MS VMs I have here, to see which one breaks.
