On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 05:02:14PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:26:53PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > In my opinion, the real mess in this case is in the ACPI spec itself. If
> > > you re-read th
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:26:53PM -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
> > > On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> > >>> On 02/08
On 02/13/16 18:26, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wr
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
> > On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> >>> On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:25:07
On 02/10/2016 12:33 PM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:16:32PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
>> On 02/10/2016 12:10 PM, Roman Kagan wrote:
>>> Well, as I wrote in another mail, SeaBIOS, which is supposed to provide
>>> the same information to int 0x13/0x08, populates it with static dat
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:16:32PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 12:10 PM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > Well, as I wrote in another mail, SeaBIOS, which is supposed to provide
> > the same information to int 0x13/0x08, populates it with static data
> > based only on the drive type as encoded in
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:14:30AM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 01:48 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> Implementing this in QEMU would require:
> >> - inventing virt-only registers for the FDC that provide the current
>
On 02/10/2016 12:10 PM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> In my opinion, the real mess in this case is in the ACPI spec itself. If
>> you re-read the _FDI control method's description, the Package that it
>> returns contains *dynamic* geometry d
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> In my opinion, the real mess in this case is in the ACPI spec itself. If
> you re-read the _FDI control method's description, the Package that it
> returns contains *dynamic* geometry data, about the *disk* (not *drive*):
>
> - Maximu
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:22:01AM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> > I don't. At the time the patch was developed there basically were no
> > mechanisms to update the geometry at all (and this was what you patchset
> > addressed, in particular, wasn't it?) so I didn't care.
>
> That's not true.
>
> Yo
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:14:30AM -0500, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 01:48 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon,
On 02/09/2016 01:48 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 08:14
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 07:36:12PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> >>> On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 a
On 02/09/16 17:22, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:25:07PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> +aml_append(fdi,
>>
On 02/09/2016 10:52 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
>> On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:25:07PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> +aml_append(fdi,
> +aml_int(cylinders - 1)); /* Maximum C
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:20:47PM -0500, John Snow wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:25:07PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>> +aml_append(fdi,
> >>> +aml_int(cylinders - 1)); /* Maximum Cylinder Number */
> >> this puts uint64_t(-1) in
On 02/08/2016 08:14 AM, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:25:07PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:54:13 +0200
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>>> -static Aml *build_fdc_device_aml(void)
>>> +static Aml *build_fdinfo_aml(int idx, uint8_t type, uint8_t cylinders,
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:25:07PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:54:13 +0200
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > -static Aml *build_fdc_device_aml(void)
> > +static Aml *build_fdinfo_aml(int idx, uint8_t type, uint8_t cylinders,
> > + uint8_t heads,
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:54:13 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> From: Roman Kagan
>
> On x86-based systems Linux determines the presence
> and the type of floppy drives via a query of a CMOS field.
> So does SeaBIOS when populating the return data for
> int 0x13 function 0x08.
>
> However Wind
From: Roman Kagan
On x86-based systems Linux determines the presence
and the type of floppy drives via a query of a CMOS field.
So does SeaBIOS when populating the return data for
int 0x13 function 0x08.
However Windows doesn't do it. Instead, it requests
this information from BIOS via int 0x13/
20 matches
Mail list logo
