From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52074) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5Z9C-00054Q-QU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:05:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5Z95-0003mo-Ru for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:05:34 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5Z95-0003mi-JR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:05:27 -0500 Message-ID: <52DE5471.5090901@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:05:21 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20140120212517.GD18508@ERROL.INI.CMU.EDU> <52DE4CDC.4070501@redhat.com> <20140121110202.GA22693@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140121110202.GA22693@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: ACPI, HPET._CRS, MacOSX vs. WinXP List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: imammedo@redhat.com, "Gabriel L. Somlo" , lersek@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de Il 21/01/2014 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > I think it is safe to assume that no OSPM will do those crazy things > > with OS-defined _OSI strings (it's quite plausible that they do it with > > feature _OSI strings). > > > > First, because IMHO it is completely insane. > > Insane, yes. > This is however what windows does and this is what microsoft document > explicitly says. Yeah, that's what I would like a source for. _How_ does Microsoft tweak its ACPI implementation based on the set of feature bits that are _OSI-probed? But even that is not very important because... > We restrict ourselves to a very small subset of the spec > that seems to work well everywhere, and > so far OSPMs seem to assume that's what no _OSI means. ... do we have reason to believe that adding _OSI("Darwin") will make some OSPM *restrict* their features further? I don't think so. Besides being doubly insane to me, it contradicts the spec. The spec says that _OSI probes can be used by the OSPM to provide *more* features, not less. It says "OSPM can choose to expose new functionality" based on the _OSI argument string. So only Mac OS X has to be tested if we probe _OSI("Darwin"). Paolo