>>> On 28.11.16 at 14:13, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > The tools (such as mk_dsdt) can be cross-built when it may not be > desirable to build them on the target. > > The commit c4ac1077 "libxl/arm: Generate static ACPI DSDT table" > introduced support of ARM64 in mk_dsdt but also break cross-building > tools because the ACPI tables are not correct. > > While mk_dsdt should generate ACPI table for the target architecture, it > currently generates the one for the host. This is because the source > code contains reference to the host architecture (__aarch64__, > __x86_64__, __i386__) when it should be the target architecture. > > Replace all __aarch64__, __x86_64__, __i386__ by the corresponding > CONFIG_*. > > Also expose the CONFIG_* to the source code as the currently only > exposed to the Makefile. > > Reported-by: Andrii Anisov <andrii.ani...@gmail.com> > Suggested-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> However, ... > --- a/tools/libacpi/mk_dsdt.c > +++ b/tools/libacpi/mk_dsdt.c > @@ -17,9 +17,9 @@ > #include <getopt.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > #include <stdbool.h> > -#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86) > #include <xen/hvm/hvm_info_table.h> > -#elif defined(__aarch64__) > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARM_64) > #include <xen/arch-arm.h> > #endif .. for this and at least some of the others I wonder whether from an abstract pov these shouldn't be CONFIG_ARM. Agreed, it won't matter as long as there's no use of ACPI on ARM32, hence my R-b stands either way, but I'd like you to clarify whether it really should go in this way. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
