On 18 February 2016 at 21:14, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/18/16 21:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> The ACPI spec predates the AARCH64 architecture by 5 versions, so there >> is no point in supporting anything below v5.0. So set the PCD that >> controls the ACPI table generation to the appropriate value. >> >> Note that the current consumers of this PCD only check whether bit 1 >> is set or not (i.e., ACPI v1.0b), but this may change in the future, >> so let's choose a meaningful value right away. >> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >> --- >> ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc b/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc >> index cece70dd97b9..d0e9a6f7ea33 100644 >> --- a/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc >> +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc >> @@ -174,6 +174,9 @@ [PcdsFixedAtBuild.common] >> # arm64 or ARM Linux, and enabling it here is pointless. >> gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPropertiesTableEnable|FALSE >> >> + # we only target OSes that support ACPI v5.0 or later >> + gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdAcpiExposedTableVersions|0x20 >> + >> [PcdsFixedAtBuild.AARCH64] >> gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdSetNxForStack|TRUE >> >> > > You mention AARCH64 in the commit message, but the PCD is set in the > [PcdsFixedAtBuild.common] section, hence it will affect the ARM build > too. Is that intentional? >
No, it is not intentional, but ACPI on ARM is non-existent in practice (and I am not even sure if the spec actually covers it). I can move it if you like _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
