Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/74] acpi: extend aml_and() to accept target argument

[Shannon Zhao]

On 2015/12/10 7:41, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/acpi/aml-build.c         | 4 ++--
>  hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c    | 2 +-
>  hw/i386/acpi-build.c        | 8 +++++---
>  include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h | 2 +-
>  4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> index 4f62512..2ca9207 100644
> --- a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> +++ b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> @@ -499,9 +499,9 @@ build_opcode_2arg_dst(uint8_t op, Aml *arg1, Aml *arg2, 
> Aml *dst)
>  }
>  
>  /* ACPI 1.0b: 16.2.5.4 Type 2 Opcodes Encoding: DefAnd */
> -Aml *aml_and(Aml *arg1, Aml *arg2)
> +Aml *aml_and(Aml *arg1, Aml *arg2, Aml *dst)
>  {
> -    return build_opcode_2arg_dst(0x7B /* AndOp */, arg1, arg2, NULL);
> +    return build_opcode_2arg_dst(0x7B /* AndOp */, arg1, arg2, dst);
>  }
>  
>  /* ACPI 1.0b: 16.2.5.4 Type 2 Opcodes Encoding: DefOr */
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> index 1cc98f5..698b5f2 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_pci(Aml *scope, const 
> MemMapEntry *memmap, int irq,
>          aml_create_dword_field(aml_arg(3), aml_int(8), "CDW3"));
>      aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(aml_name("CDW2"), aml_name("SUPP")));
>      aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(aml_name("CDW3"), aml_name("CTRL")));
> -    aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(aml_and(aml_name("CTRL"), aml_int(0x1D)),
> +    aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(aml_and(aml_name("CTRL"), aml_int(0x1D), 
> NULL),

I'm not sure why you must extend this kind functions now. When I post
the patch to add aml_and(), you said
"
>>>> +Aml *aml_and(Aml *arg1, Aml *arg2, Aml *arg3)
>> I know that it's possible to Store inside of And(a, b, save_here)
>> ASL op, but could you instead rewrite it to
>>
>>  Store(And(a, b), save_here)
>>
>> so it wouldn't clatter trivial  And(a,b) uses and drop this hunk.
>>
> Yes, we can use Store(And(a, b), save_here) but according to the SPEC
> the And op can have 3 args. We don't support it?
I don't think that we should do it if it could be implemented
using 2 already existing API calls to keep it simple and not to
pollute code with extra ", NULL" argument in most cases.
"

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon