There isn't a whole range of VT-x enabled laptops I could get my hands
on to better answer your question. However, given the current battery
firmware implementation trend, the pass-through mode is likely to work
on laptops that uses CMBattery interface. The goal was to attempt to
put the base vACPI implementation that can be fine tuned as we go along
to better support a whole range of VT-x enabled laptops shipped in
future. That said, I have tested pass-through mode on the hardware I
could get hold of (that uses CMBattery interface) and seen it work.
Thanks,
Kamala
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:57 AM
> To: Tian, Kevin; Kamala Narasimhan; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [xen-devel][PATCH] Battery Management
>
> Sorry that I didn't read your patch carefully which describes
> the purpose clearly. Just one question is, how confident are
> you for the commonality of 'underlying firmware' you borrowed,
> regarding port address, and port funcion? If moving to a
> different battery sub-system, does it still appy to or you need
> hard-code new set of interface into vACPI? :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> >From:Tian, Kevin
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:25 PM
> >
> >>From: Kamala Narasimhan
> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:37 AM
> >>
> >>Attached is the initial battery management patch. This patch
> >>covers the
> >>virtual firmware and tool stack changes and will be followed by a
qemu
> >>patch and a xen power management daemon patch.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Kamala Narasimhan <kamala.narasimhan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure whether I fully understand "pass-through" mode and
> >"non pass-through" mode. I guess "pass-through" mode means
> >exposing real battery to HVM, while "non pass-through" mode
> >contructs a virtual battery (as in your current patch) and then let
> >another xen specific daemon to convert virtual battery ops into
> >real ones. If I understand correctly, your current implementation
> >only targets for "non pass-through" mode. Then do you plan to
> >support the other, which is more difficult as you may need merge
> >part of real ACPI table with virtual ones...
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Kevin
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Xen-devel mailing list
> >Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home