WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] Current HVM acpi support is broken

To: <Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Current HVM acpi support is broken
From: "Wang, Winston L" <winston.l.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:06:26 -0700
Cc: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Tang Liang <tangliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:07:02 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Aca7FAo2EzOAL9JAS1CECC7Bz1/VCwAADUoA
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Current HVM acpi support is broken
Christian,
I haven't tried qemu0.8.2 acpi code yet.
Let me try to do the following:
1)Create two patches, one qemu0.8.2 acpi only another for xen acpi only
2)Test the two and compare the difference both in functional and
performance
Thanks,
Winston,

Christian Limpach wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Wang, Winston L <winston.l.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Christian, Ian and Kair,
>> 
>> I think current hvm acpi support is broken.
>> We noticed qemu to 0.82 with acpi support is introduced on changset
>> 10957, it is conflict with xen hvm acpi code, in ../ioemu/hw/cp.c
>> start from ln 860:
> 
> Yes, I tried to disable the acpi which comes with qemu 0.8.2 but I
> missed the 2nd call-site (acpi_bios_init).
> 
> To move forward:
> - does it work if you disable the call to acpi_bios_init?
> - can you compare the qemu acpi support to the acpi support you've
> provided and maybe merge some of it?
> 
> I don't feel strongly about using one or the other, I guess it would
> be good if we could leverage some of the qemu acpi work but maybe it's
> still quite immature?
> 
>     christian
> 
>> 
>>     cmos_init(ram_size, boot_device, bs_table, timeoffset);
>> 
>>     /* using PIIX4 acpi model */
>>     if (pci_enabled && acpi_enabled)
>>         pci_piix4_acpi_init(pci_bus, piix3_devfn + 3);
>> 
>>     if (pci_enabled && usb_enabled) {
>>         usb_uhci_init(pci_bus, piix3_devfn + 2);
>>     }
>> 
>>     if (pci_enabled && acpi_enabled && 0) {
>>         piix4_pm_init(pci_bus, piix3_devfn + 3);
>>     }
>> ...
>>     /* XXX: should be done in the Bochs BIOS */
>>     if (pci_enabled) {
>>         pci_bios_init();
>>         if (acpi_enabled)
>>             acpi_bios_init();
>>     }
>> }
>> 
>> The above code generate two acpi tables and acpi pci piix func3
>> device when acpi=1 in hvm guest platform.
>> 
>> Two sets of acpi can not co-exist:) What acpi set do we need to keep?
>> What is the advatage for that?
>> 
>> We are cureent have to use changset 10955 puls acpi_init_fix.patch
>> for acpi related development. 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Winston,
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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