On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:28:59 +0000
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> * Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 08:07:41PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I noticed that the acpi_1_compatible flag was misspelt as
> > > apci_1_compatible
> > >
> > > so have a trivial patch to fix that,
pls post it.
> > > but looking at it - are
> > > thre any cases where a[cp]i_1_compatible can possibly be false?
ATM it's not possible, but I've wrote it with intent to reuse
build_cpus_aml() in arm/virt board and there we shall use newer
aml_device() instead of legacy aml_processor(), hence a feature flag
to toggle behavior.
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> > legacy_cpu_hotplug so machine 2.6 and older - no?
>
> That doesn't seem to affect that flag by my reading;
> the only place I see legacy_cpu_hotplug checked is
> acpi-build.c:build_dsdt and we have:
>
> if (pcmc->legacy_cpu_hotplug) {
> build_legacy_cpu_hotplug_aml(dsdt, machine, pm->cpu_hp_io_base);
> } else {
> CPUHotplugFeatures opts = {
> .acpi_1_compatible = true, .has_legacy_cphp = true
> };
> build_cpus_aml(dsdt, machine, opts, pm->cpu_hp_io_base,
> "\\_SB.PCI0", "\\_GPE._E02");
> }
>
> so the 'opts' field is only used in the non-legacy case.
>
> That's the only caller of build_cpus_aml, and I'm not seeing another
> user of CPUHotplugFeatures.
>
> Dave
>
> > > --
> > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
