>>> On 29.09.15 at 15:25, wrote:
> On 25/09/15 12:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.09.15 at 11:55, wrote:
>>> It is safe for the SMM handler to use CMOS if it returns the index
>>> register back to how it found it. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that
>>> there real SMM handlers out there w
On 25/09/15 12:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.09.15 at 11:55, wrote:
>> It is safe for the SMM handler to use CMOS if it returns the index
>> register back to how it found it. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that
>> there real SMM handlers out there which do do this.
> So what options do yo
>>> On 25.09.15 at 11:55, wrote:
> It is safe for the SMM handler to use CMOS if it returns the index
> register back to how it found it. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that
> there real SMM handlers out there which do do this.
So what options do you see then here? Don't do anything (drop th
On 24/09/15 09:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.09.15 at 20:34, wrote:
On 22/09/15 14:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
+for ( offs = 2; offs < 8; offs <<= 1 )
+{
+bool_t read = 1;
+
+for ( i = RTC_REG_D + 1; i < 0x80; ++i )
+{
+uint8_t normal, alt;
+un
>>> On 23.09.15 at 20:34, wrote:
> On 22/09/15 14:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> +for ( offs = 2; offs < 8; offs <<= 1 )
>> +{
>> +bool_t read = 1;
>> +
>> +for ( i = RTC_REG_D + 1; i < 0x80; ++i )
>> +{
>> +uint8_t normal, alt;
>> +unsigned long
On 22/09/15 14:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> +for ( offs = 2; offs < 8; offs <<= 1 )
> +{
> +bool_t read = 1;
> +
> +for ( i = RTC_REG_D + 1; i < 0x80; ++i )
> +{
> +uint8_t normal, alt;
> +unsigned long flags;
> +
> +if ( i == acpi_gbl
... in order to also intercept accesses through the alias ports.
Also stop intercepting accesses to the CMOS ports if we won't ourselves
use the CMOS RTC.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
@@ -1544,42 +1544,6 @@ int __hwdom_init xen_in_range(unsign
