qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/6] i386: expose floppy-related objects in S


From: Roman Kagan
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/6] i386: expose floppy-related objects in SSDT
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:26:26 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:51:15PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:11:50 +0300
> Roman Kagan <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Windows on UEFI systems is only capable of detecting the presence and
> > the type of floppy drives via corresponding ACPI objects.
> > 
> > Those objects are added in patch 5; the preceding ones pave the way to
> > it, by making the necessary data public and by moving the whole
> > floppy drive controller description into runtime-generated SSDT.
> > 
> > Note that the series conflicts with Igor's patchset for dynamic DSDT, in
> > particular, with "[PATCH v2 27/51] pc: acpi: move FDC0 device from DSDT
> > to SSDT"; I haven't managed to avoid that while trying to meet
> > maintainer's comments.
> 
> 
> Hello Roman,
> 
> I've rebased/rewrote this series on top of current PCI tree.
> Could you tell me if I should keep your Author/SoB on following
> patches or change/drop it and if it's the case please specify what
> should be changed:
> 
>   i386/acpi: make floppy controller object dynamic
>       
> https://github.com/imammedo/qemu/commit/f0a3a4761f8f9698d0f0117d47e2353505de37bf
>   i386: populate floppy drive information in DSDT
>       
> https://github.com/imammedo/qemu/commit/97578d32e0a0b1cea0b6229f5ef51f8e104b7fdb

Both patches look good to me (I just noticed an excessive "to" in the
log message of the second one, in "QEMU doesn't _to_ provide those
objects in its ACPI tables", you may want to delete it before
propagating the patch upstream).

Now what are the plans re. stable branches?  I think the problem of the
floppy being unavaliable in Windows on UEFI/OVMF justifies porting it
there (we are interested, in particular, in stable-2.3), but I'm now
confused as to what state to use as the base.

(As a matter of fact I'd been hoping that my patches made it in before
your dynamic DSDT rework so the backport would be trivial cherry-pick;
as this is no longer the case I'd appreciate your (or anybody else's)
advice on how to move on with stable.)

Thanks,
Roman.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]