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

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 02/01/17 13:52, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/01/17 12:37, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:17:02 +0200
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:28:57PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> The ACPI 6.1 spec says,
>>>>
>>>> - DSDT: [...] If the X_DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this
>>>>   field must be zero.
>>>> - X_DSDT: [...] If the DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this
>>>>   field must be zero.  
>>>
>>> But that's only 6.1. 6.0 and earlier did not say this.
>>> The errata they wanted to address was:
>>> 1393 In FADT: if X_DSDT field is non-zero, DSDT
>>> field should be ignored or deprecated
>>>
>>> I would class this as a spec bug.
>>>
>>
>> The same applies to X_PM1a_EVT_BLK and co,
>> for example 5.1 spec "This is a required
>> field."
>>
>> And looks like Windows implemented it as mandatory
>> to boot perhaps to be compatible with 5.1 and earlier
>> specs.
>>
>> It appears fw would be forced to fill fields depending
>> on table revision.
> 
> Sounds like a valid point.
> 
> I compared the FADT defintion between ACPI 5.1 and ACPI 6.1. Indeed, the
> former says:
> 
> - FADT Major Version: 5; Major Version of this FADT structure, [...]
> - DSDT: Physical memory address (0-4 GB) of the DSDT.
> - X_DSDT: 64bit physical address of the DSDT.
> 
> the latter says:
> 
> - FADT Major Version: 6; Major Version of this FADT structure, [...]
> 
> - DSDT: Physical memory address of the DSDT. If the X_DSDT field
>   contains a non-zero value then this field must be zero.
> 
> - X_DSDT: Extended physical address of the DSDT. If the DSDT field
>   contains a non-zero value then this field must be zero.
> 
> I will ask on edk2-devel whether the
> "MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe" maintainers can think of a
> way to accommodate this.

Sigh, this looks nasty.

Considering specifically the DSDT <-> X_DSDT question, Mantis ticket
#1393 (which requires the mutual exclusion) went into 5.1B. In version
5.1A, the mutual exclusion is not required.

Unfortuantely, the FADT Major.Minor version, as reported through the
bytes at offsets 8 and 131 decimal in the table, is "5.1" for *both*
5.1A and 5.1B. In other words, looking at just Major.Minor, it cannot be
determined with full precision whether the DSDT and X_DSDT fields should
be exclusive or not. :/

Laszlo