Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] acpi: add reset register to fadt

[Igor Mammedov]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:04:58 +0000
Phil Dennis-Jordan <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 16:41, Igor Mammedov <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:58:22 +0200
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0100, Phil Dennis-Jordan wrote:  
> > > > On 18 January 2017 at 18:19, Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>  
> > wrote:  
> > > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:30:59 +0200
> > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > >  
> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:45:54PM +0100, Phil Dennis-Jordan wrote:  
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >  
> > > > >> > I suspect more might be involved in enabling ACPI 2.0, and it  
> > should probably be an option so as to avoid regressions. I don't know what
> > the best approach would be for this, so comments welcome. Should adding the
> > reset register to the FADT also be configurable?  
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would say an option to make FADT use rev 3 format would be a good
> > > > >> idea.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd make it the default if XP survives.  
> > > > > if XP and legacy linux survive,
> > > > > I'd skip adding option as probably there won't be any users,
> > > > > in unlikely case such user surfaces we always can add option later
> > > > > but we can't do it other way around (i.e. take it away).  
> > > >
> > > > I have now finally solved the mystery of why my FADT patch has been
> > > > going so disastrously wrong - I've now got working code, but I'd
> > > > appreciate some guidance on the best way to structure a patch to
> > > > minimise further back-and forth.  
> > >
> > > + lersek
> > >  
> > > > The culprit turned out to be OVMF,
> > > > specifically 2 bugs/shortcomings:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It completely gives up on parsing Qemu's ACPI tables if more than
> > > > one "add pointer" linker command points to the same table. In this
> > > > case, if you add a command for both the DSDT and X_DSDT fields of the
> > > > FADT, it aborts completely and uses fallback tables. (The following
> > > > InstallAcpiTable call fails if called twice with the same table type.)
> > > >  
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe/QemuFwCfgAcpi.c#L518
> >   
> > > >
> > > > 2. After applying all the linker commands, it goes and rewrites part
> > > > of the FADT anyway. Specifically, it rewrites the DSDT and X_DSDT
> > > > fields - and it always sets one of them to 0. Which one depends on
> > > > whether the DSDT is above the 4G barrier:
> > > >  
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c#L650
> >   
> > > >
> > > > Both of these are easily fixed, and I will submit a corresponding  
> > patch to EDK2.  
> > > >
> > > > With that fixed, the rest of the FADT provided by Qemu is accepted by
> > > > OVMF and the operating systems. On the Qemu side, it does mean we'll
> > > > need to still retain the ACPI 1.0 tables for backwards compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > Q1: How should the option be structured and named? Should the FADT
> > > > revision be selectable via a sub-option on -machine? Or as a
> > > > standalone option? Something else?  
> > WinXP is main reason why we are using 1.0 revisions,
> > but if bumping revision doesn't affect it or later versions
> > and linux kernel (ancient/contemporary) boots fine,
> > I wouldn't bother with yet another option.
> >  
> 
> XP is fine. My concern is that setups with OVMF+Windows (10 confirmed, but
> probably 7/8 too) will suddenly bluescreen on boot because unpatched OVMF
> delivers a non-compliant FADT.
Does it work with SeaBIOS?
Wrt QVMF lets waits for Laszlo's reply,
may he could offer a way around issue.

> 
> 
> > > > Q2: To avoid any more confusion, I'd appreciate
> > > > confirmation/clarification on the X_ and non-X FADT fields in the case
> > > > where 32-bit pointers suffice.
> > > >
> > > > Q2a: DSDT/X_DSDT: Both variants appear to be de-facto required.  
> > spec doesn't say that X_DSDT is optional and Windows requires it if field
> > is present.
> >  
> > > >
> > > > Q2b: FIRMWARE_CTRL/X_FIRMWARE_CTRL: leave X_FIRMWARE_CTRL zero.
> > > >
> > > > Q2c: X_PM1a_EVT_BLK, X_PM1a_CNT_BLK, X_PM_TMR_BLK: These all state
> > > > "This is a required field" for both variants.
> > > >
> > > > Q2d: GPE0_BLK/X_GPE0_BLK: Both variants state "if this register block
> > > > is not supported, this field contains zero." - I understand this to
> > > > mean that when the register block IS supported and 32-bit, both
> > > > variants must be filled.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, only X_FIRMWARE_CTRL stays zero in Qemu's x86 case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll come up with a revised patch in the next few days.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help and patience so far, everyone!  
> >
> >