On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:59:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:42:34AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Sorry, I lost you here. What "works for IO-based fw-cf
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:42:34AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Sorry, I lost you here. What "works for IO-based fw-cfg, but not for
> MMIO-based".
Undefined IO ports return -1, u
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:42:34AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Sorry, I lost you here. What "works for IO-based fw-cfg, but not for
> >>> MMIO-based".
> >> Undefined IO ports return -1, undefined (/wrt read acc
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Sorry, I lost you here. What "works for IO-based fw-cfg, but not for
>>> MMIO-based".
>> Undefined IO ports return -1, undefined (/wrt read access) MMIO 0. So
>> you need to select a key that is different from bot
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Sorry, I lost you here. What "works for IO-based fw-cfg, but not for
> > MMIO-based".
>
> Undefined IO ports return -1, undefined (/wrt read access) MMIO 0. So
> you need to select a key that is different from both.
>
But can we rely
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:17:51AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:00:56PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:16PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:17:51AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:00:56PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:16PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:00:56PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:16PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:00:56PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:16PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Jan Kiszka
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:16PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:16PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kisz
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:33:13AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On W
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka
>>
>>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:51:14AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> There is no need starti
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
From: Jan Kiszka
There is no need starting with the special value for hpet_cfg.count.
Either Seabios is aware
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> From: Jan Kiszka
> >>
> >> There is no need starting with the special value for hpet_cfg.count.
> >> Either Seabios is aware of the new firmware in
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka
>>
>> There is no need starting with the special value for hpet_cfg.count.
>> Either Seabios is aware of the new firmware interface and properly
>> interprets the counter or it simply ignores it a
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:40:28AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka
>
> There is no need starting with the special value for hpet_cfg.count.
> Either Seabios is aware of the new firmware interface and properly
> interprets the counter or it simply ignores it anyway.
>
I want seabios t
20 matches
Mail list logo