From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F006C04AB4 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 17:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAAC220815 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 17:01:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EAAC220815 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32965 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRJlN-0002YJ-QZ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:01:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRJkW-00029n-5T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:00:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRJkU-00036k-AG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:00:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49822) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hRJkN-00030L-5p; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:00:47 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277C130BDE5D; Thu, 16 May 2019 17:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.2.182]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93315D9C4; Thu, 16 May 2019 17:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 19:00:33 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov To: Philippe =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlldS1EYXVkw6k=?= Message-ID: <20190516190033.6c8d382f@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20190419003053.8260-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20190419003053.8260-7-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20190514211015-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190516074110.GA11938@richard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Thu, 16 May 2019 17:00:45 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 6/6] acpi: pci: use build_append_foo() API to construct MCFG X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Yang Zhong , Peter Maydell , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers , Shannon Zhao , qemu-arm , Wei Yang Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 16 May 2019 13:01:31 +0200 Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:41 AM Wei Yang = wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:29:17AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 w= rote: =20 > > > > > >Thanks Michael for testing... > > > > > >Wei, can you add a MCFG test in tests/bios-tables-test.c? > > > =20 > > > > I took a look into the test, current q35 has already has a reference MC= FG in > > tests/data/acpi/q35/MCFG. > > > > And there would be a warning message when reserved[8] is missed. > > > > /x86_64/acpi/q35/bridge: acpi-test: Warning! MCFG mismatch. > > > > Is this enough? Or what more information prefer to add? =20 >=20 > Well, the test has to fail for any mismatch (not a simple warning). >=20 > A mismatch failure seems to be enough IMHO. Warning is sufficient, we do not fail ACPI tests on mismatch. It was a policy decision for APCI tests as far as I remember. We might reconsider it in the future but it shouldn't affect this patch. >=20 > > >>> - AcpiMcfgAllocation allocation[0]; > > >>> -} QEMU_PACKED; > > >>> -typedef struct AcpiTableMcfg AcpiTableMcfg; > > >>> - > > >>> /* > > >>> * TCPA Description Table > > >>> * > > >>> -- > > >>> 2.19.1 =20 > > > > -- > > Wei Yang > > Help you, Help me =20 >=20