Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-21 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/01/2014 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > > I think it is safe to assume that no OSPM will do those crazy things > > > with OS-defined _OSI strings (it's quite plausible that they do it with > > > feature _OSI strings).

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-21 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:25:18PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > And later: > > > > > > Device (HPET) { > > > ... > > > Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized) { > > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-21 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 21/01/2014 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > I think it is safe to assume that no OSPM will do those crazy things > > with OS-defined _OSI strings (it's quite plausible that they do it with > > feature _OSI strings). > > > > First, because IMHO it is completely insane. > > Insane, yes.

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-21 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/01/2014 22:25, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto: > > > > "Implementation Note > > Place the routine that identifies the operating system in an _INI method > > under the \_SB scope so that _OSI can run as early as possible. This

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-21 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 20/01/2014 22:25, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto: > > "Implementation Note > Place the routine that identifies the operating system in an _INI method > under the \_SB scope so that _OSI can run as early as possible. This > placement is important because the operating system makes features >

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Gabriel L. Somlo
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > And later: > > > > Device (HPET) { > > ... > > Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized) { > > If (LGreaterEqual (OSYS, 0x07D1)) { > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:54:15PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:16:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > >>> > > I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: > > >>> > > OSPMs > > >>> > > are k

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:16:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > >>> > > > >>> > > I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs > >>> > > are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they > >>> > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Gabriel L. Somlo
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:16:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > >>> > > I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs > >>> > > are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they > >>> > > need to try

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: >>> > > >>> > > I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs >>> > > are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they >>> > > need to try and emulate the OS probed. >> > >> > Source? >> > >> > Paol

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:57:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/01/2014 12:58, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > I think at this point I agree. > > > > I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs > > are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assumin

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Igor Mammedov
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:10:16 -0500 "Gabriel L. Somlo" wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:13:11PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > Il 09/01/2014 22:44, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto: > > > > > 1. hardcode "IRQNoFlags(){2, 8}" a

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 20/01/2014 12:58, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > I think at this point I agree. > > I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs > are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they > need to try and emulate the OS probed. Source? Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-20 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:13:11PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > Il 09/01/2014 22:44, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto: > > > > > 1. hardcode "IRQNoFlags(){2, 8}

[Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP

2014-01-17 Thread Gabriel L. Somlo
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:13:11PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > Il 09/01/2014 22:44, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto: > > > > 1. hardcode "IRQNoFlags(){2, 8}" and require -no-hpet to prevent XP > > > >from bluescreening. Basica