Hello Shannon,
It just occurred to me that the way to build the ACPI tables, I am not
speaking about the value, is very similar to what QEMU does.
Perhaps, we should copy the copyright from QEMU in libxl_arm.c. In this
case, moving the ACPI code in a separate file would be the best.
On 31/05/16 06:02, Shannon Zhao wrote:
From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org>
---
tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
index 0fb4f69..c3b8fb4 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c
@@ -922,6 +922,28 @@ static void make_acpi_gtdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct
xc_dom_image *dom)
dom->acpitable_size += dom->acpitable_blob->gtdt.size;
}
+static void make_acpi_fadt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom)
+{
+ struct acpi_fadt_descriptor *fadt;
+
+ fadt = libxl__zalloc(gc, sizeof(*fadt));
+
+ /* Hardware Reduced = 1 and use PSCI 0.2+ and with HVC */
+ fadt->flags = 1 << ACPI_FADT_F_HW_REDUCED_ACPI;
+ fadt->arm_boot_flags = (1 << ACPI_FADT_ARM_USE_PSCI_G_0_2) |
+ (1 << ACPI_FADT_ARM_PSCI_USE_HVC);
+
+ /* ACPI v5.1 (fadt->revision.fadt->minor_revision) */
+ fadt->minor_revision = 0x1;
+
+ make_acpi_header(&fadt->header, "FACP", sizeof(*fadt), 5);
+
+ dom->acpitable_blob->fadt.table = (void *)fadt;
pointless cast.
+ /* Align to 64bit. */
I am not sure what the comment is for.
+ dom->acpitable_blob->fadt.size = sizeof(*fadt);
+ dom->acpitable_size += dom->acpitable_blob->fadt.size;
+}
+
static int prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info,
libxl__domain_build_state *state,
struct xc_dom_image *dom)
@@ -943,6 +965,7 @@ static int prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc,
libxl_domain_build_info *info,
dom->acpitable_size = 0;
make_acpi_gtdt(gc, dom);
+ make_acpi_fadt(gc, dom);
return 0;
}
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
