On 08/02/2012 04:05 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 08/02/2012 01:32 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 08/01/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Well, I should also probably add
Corey Minyard writes:
> On 08/02/2012 01:32 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Corey Minyard writes:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
> On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> Well, I should also probably add the ACPI name space de
On 08/02/2012 01:32 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 08/01/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Well, I should also probably add the ACPI name space definition for this
information, too, and the SMBIOS
Corey Minyard writes:
> On 08/01/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Corey Minyard writes:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
>>> Well, I should also probably add the ACPI name space definition for this
>>> information, too, and the SMBIOS information is not capable of pas
On 08/01/2012 09:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Well, I should also probably add the ACPI name space definition for this
information, too, and the SMBIOS information is not capable of passing
all the information required for th
Corey Minyard writes:
> On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
>>
>> This approach, unfortunately, leads to extra code and "double
>> handling" of infomation.
>>
>> The ultimate consumer of the data wants a binary struct which looks
>> like:
>>
>> struct smbios_type_38 {
>> struct smb
On 08/01/2012 08:15 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
This approach, unfortunately, leads to extra code and "double
handling" of infomation.
The ultimate consumer of the data wants a binary struct which looks
like:
struct smbios_type_38 {
struct smbios_structure_header header;
u8 interface_t
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:25:16PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Corey Minyard writes:
> > On 07/30/2012 10:37 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> miny...@acm.org writes:
> >>> There was no way to directly add a table entry to the SMBIOS table,
> >>> even though the BIOS supports this. So add a fun
On 07/30/2012 12:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Corey Minyard writes:
On 07/30/2012 10:37 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
miny...@acm.org writes:
From: Corey Minyard
There was no way to directly add a table entry to the SMBIOS table,
even though the BIOS supports this. So add a function to do
Corey Minyard writes:
> On 07/30/2012 10:37 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> miny...@acm.org writes:
>>
>>> From: Corey Minyard
>>>
>>> There was no way to directly add a table entry to the SMBIOS table,
>>> even though the BIOS supports this. So add a function to do this.
>>> This is in preparati
On 07/30/2012 10:37 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
miny...@acm.org writes:
From: Corey Minyard
There was no way to directly add a table entry to the SMBIOS table,
even though the BIOS supports this. So add a function to do this.
This is in preparation for the IPMI handler adding it's SMBIOS tabl
miny...@acm.org writes:
> From: Corey Minyard
>
> There was no way to directly add a table entry to the SMBIOS table,
> even though the BIOS supports this. So add a function to do this.
> This is in preparation for the IPMI handler adding it's SMBIOS table
> entry.
>
> Signed-off-by: Corey Minya
From: Corey Minyard
There was no way to directly add a table entry to the SMBIOS table,
even though the BIOS supports this. So add a function to do this.
This is in preparation for the IPMI handler adding it's SMBIOS table
entry.
Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard
---
hw/smbios.c | 27 +++
13 matches
Mail list logo
