[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/7] ipmi: Fix SSIF ACPI handling to use the rig

From: Corey Minyard
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/7] ipmi: Fix SSIF ACPI handling to use the right CRS
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:29:53 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2

On 05/12/2016 02:33 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:46:05PM -0500, address@hidden wrote:
From: Corey Minyard <address@hidden>

Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <address@hidden>
  hw/acpi/ipmi.c | 4 +++-
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/acpi/ipmi.c b/hw/acpi/ipmi.c
index 731f4ad..c187fdd 100644
--- a/hw/acpi/ipmi.c
+++ b/hw/acpi/ipmi.c
@@ -49,7 +49,9 @@ static Aml *aml_ipmi_crs(IPMIFwInfo *info)
                              regspacing, info->register_length));
-        aml_append(crs, aml_return(aml_int(info->base_address)));
+        aml_append(crs, aml_i2c_serial_bus_device(0, 100000,
+                                                  info->base_address,
+                                                  info->acpi_parent));
Isn't this fairly new? If so using these opcodes
is likely to break some older guests. Maybe they already don't
work, but I'd like to see some explanation about that,
and what was tested.

This is new with the 5.0 specification.

I haven't done extensive testing on anything but Linux 3.10 and later. Well, I might have run 2.6.32, but I can't remember. I don't have the ability to test Windows.

But isn't the idea of these definitions that they are ignored if the OS doesn't understand them? Otherwise you could never add anything.



reply via email to

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