Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 11/17] libxl/arm: Construct ACPI DSDT table

[Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2016/6/27 20:05, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/27/2016 06:29 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> (CC Boris and Doug)
>>
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>> On 27/06/16 07:01, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> On 2016/6/24 1:03, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/Makefile b/tools/libxl/Makefile
>>>>> index 264b6ef..5347480 100644
>>>>> --- a/tools/libxl/Makefile
>>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -77,7 +77,29 @@ endif
>>>>>
>>>>>    LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_X86) += libxl_cpuid.o libxl_x86.o libxl_psr.o
>>>>>    LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_ARM) += libxl_nocpuid.o libxl_arm.o
>>>>> libxl_libfdt_compat.o
>>>>> -LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_ARM) += libxl_arm_acpi.o
>>>>> +LIBXL_OBJS-$(CONFIG_ARM) += libxl_arm_acpi.o libxl_dsdt_anycpu_arm.o
>>>>> +
>>>>> +vpath iasl $(PATH)
>>>>> +libxl_mk_dsdt_arm: libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
>>>>> +    $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
>>>>> +
>>>>> +libxl_dsdt_anycpu_arm.asl: libxl_empty_dsdt_arm.asl libxl_mk_dsdt_arm
>>>>> +    awk 'NR > 1 {print s} {s=$$0}' $< > $@
>>>>> +    ./libxl_mk_dsdt_arm >> $@
>>>>> +
>>>>> +libxl_dsdt_anycpu_arm.c: %.c: iasl %.asl
>>>>> +    iasl -vs -p $* -tc $*.asl
>>>>> +    sed -e 's/AmlCode/$*/g' $*.hex >$@
>>>>> +    echo "int $*_len=sizeof($*);" >>$@
>>>>> +    rm -f $*.aml $*.hex
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I don't like the idea to add iasl as a dependency for all ARM
>>>> platforms.
>>>> For instance ARMv7 platform will not use ACPI, but we still ask
>>>> users to
>>>> install iasl. So I think we should allow the user to opt-in/opt-out for
>>>> ACPI.
>>>>
>>>> Any opinions?
>>>>
>>> I agree. But how to exclude for ARMv7. I notice it only has the option
>>> CONFIG_ARM which doesn't distinguish ARM32 and ARM64.
>>
>> I am not sure if we plan to introduce Kconfig for tools. If not, you
>> can add an option to the configure to enable/disable ACPI for guest.
>>
>> This would be gated by the presence of "iasl".
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
>>>>> b/tools/libxl/libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..96fadbd
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_mk_dsdt_arm.c
>>>>
>>>> Can we share the code from tools/firmware/acpi/mk_dsdt.c?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, we can share push_block(), pop_block() stmt() and indent() but the
>>> main() function is totally different since there are only the processor
>>> device objects for ARM DSDT but there are many other things in x86.
>>>
>>> I think that since Boris will move the codes under
>>> tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi to other place, after that we could see
>>> how to share codes then.
>>
>> I would prefer if we discuss about it now in order to avoid code
>> duplication (I have CCed Boris).
>>
>> For instance we can create a new directory under tools for mk_dsdt.c.
>> The main could be different, although it might be possible to gate ARM
>> options, and the rest of the code would be shared.
> 
> 
> So I think we decided earlier to keep ARM and x86 ACPI builders
> separate, at least for now. 
I think so as well.

> However, looking at the Makefile and mk_dsdt
> I wonder whether it would make sense to put the builders in the same
> directory (I am currently using tools/libacpi) so that those two files
> can be kept common as much as possible, with the sources being
> different. E.g. something like
> 
> tools/libacpi:
>     Makefile
>     mk_dsdt.c
>     acpi_x86.[ch]
>     acpi_arm.[ch]
>     *asl
>     etc.
> 
> The objects will be built in tools/libxl (there will be no libacpi.so)
> but the infrastructure and sources will live together.
I'm fine with this. But I think the patch moving the codes into
tools/libacpi should be posted firstly, since this series depend on it.
Boris, could you please send that patch? Then I can add the
corresponding ARM patch on top of that.

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel