On 06/27/2016 06:29 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC Boris and Doug)
Hi Shannon,
On 27/06/16 07:01, Shannon Zhao wrote:
On 2016/6/24 1:03, Julien Grall wrote:
On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile
index 264b6ef..5347480 100644
--- a/tools/libxl/Makefile
+++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile
@@ -77,7 +77,29 @@ endif
LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_X86) += libxl_cpuid.o libxl_x86.o libxl_psr.o
LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_ARM) += libxl_nocpuid.o libxl_arm.o
libxl_libfdt_compat.o
-LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_ARM) += libxl_arm_acpi.o
+LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_ARM) += libxl_arm_acpi.o libxl_dsdt_anycpu_arm.o
+
+vpath iasl $(PATH)
+libxl_mk_dsdt_arm: libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
+ $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
+
+libxl_dsdt_anycpu_arm.asl: libxl_empty_dsdt_arm.asl libxl_mk_dsdt_arm
+ awk 'NR > 1 {print s} {s=$$0}' $< > $@
+ ./libxl_mk_dsdt_arm >> $@
+
+libxl_dsdt_anycpu_arm.c: %.c: iasl %.asl
+ iasl -vs -p $* -tc $*.asl
+ sed -e 's/AmlCode/$*/g' $*.hex >$@
+ echo "int $*_len=sizeof($*);" >>$@
+ rm -f $*.aml $*.hex
+
I don't like the idea to add iasl as a dependency for all ARM
platforms.
For instance ARMv7 platform will not use ACPI, but we still ask
users to
install iasl. So I think we should allow the user to opt-in/opt-out for
ACPI.
Any opinions?
I agree. But how to exclude for ARMv7. I notice it only has the option
CONFIG_ARM which doesn't distinguish ARM32 and ARM64.
I am not sure if we plan to introduce Kconfig for tools. If not, you
can add an option to the configure to enable/disable ACPI for guest.
This would be gated by the presence of "iasl".
[...]
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
b/tools/libxl/libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..96fadbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
Can we share the code from tools/firmware/acpi/mk_dsdt.c?
Yeah, we can share push_block(), pop_block() stmt() and indent() but the
main() function is totally different since there are only the processor
device objects for ARM DSDT but there are many other things in x86.
I think that since Boris will move the codes under
tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi to other place, after that we could see
how to share codes then.
I would prefer if we discuss about it now in order to avoid code
duplication (I have CCed Boris).
For instance we can create a new directory under tools for mk_dsdt.c.
The main could be different, although it might be possible to gate ARM
options, and the rest of the code would be shared.
So I think we decided earlier to keep ARM and x86 ACPI builders
separate, at least for now. However, looking at the Makefile and mk_dsdt
I wonder whether it would make sense to put the builders in the same
directory (I am currently using tools/libacpi) so that those two files
can be kept common as much as possible, with the sources being
different. E.g. something like
tools/libacpi:
Makefile
mk_dsdt.c
acpi_x86.[ch]
acpi_arm.[ch]
*asl
etc.
The objects will be built in tools/libxl (there will be no libacpi.so)
but the infrastructure and sources will live together.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
