From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin O'Connor Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] acpi: fix up EJ0 in DSDT Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20110926044018.GB16938@morn.localdomain> References: <20110922043513.GA488@morn.localdomain> <20110922060948.GA29819@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Amos Kong , seabios@seabios.org, Gleb Natapov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, jasowang@redhat.com, alex williamson , Marcelo Tosatti To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:37729 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750881Ab1IZEkW (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:40:22 -0400 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30so9471903qyk.19 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110922060948.GA29819@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:09:49AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:35:13AM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > > The code to generate basic SSDT code isn't that difficult (see > > build_ssdt and src/ssdt-proc.dsl). Is there a compelling reason to > > patch the DSDT versus just generating the necessary blocks in an SSDT? > > I don't really care whether the code is in DSDT or SSDT, > IMO there isn't much difference between build_ssdt and patching: > main reason is build_ssdt uses offsets hardcoded to a specific binary > (ssdt_proc and SD_OFFSET_* ) while I used > a script to extract offsets. Yes - your script to extract the offsets is nice. > I think we should avoid relying on copy-pasted binary > because I see the related ASL code changing in the near future > (with multifunction and bridge support among others). Can you expand on this? Would multi-function and bridge support make patching easier than dynamic SSDT generation? I'm a little leary of patching the DSDT - doubly so when the DSDT is creating dummy devices that are then dynamically patched out. (For example, even with your patch series there are still two devices defined with _ADR 1.) It seems more straight-forward to just create the devices that are needed. -Kevin