* Igor Mammedov (imamm...@redhat.com) wrote:
> 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.
Done.
> > > > 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.
OK, that's fine, I just couldn't see why the flag was there given the
current uses.
Dave
>
> > > >
> > > > 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
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
