On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:18:44AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 28.08.14 20:20, Aravinda Prasad wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday 28 August 2014 04:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 25.08.14 15:45, Aravinda Prasad wrote: > >>> Extend rtas-blob to accommodate error log. Error log > >>> structure is saved in rtas space upon a machine check > >>> exception. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Aravinda Prasad <aravi...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> > >> I can't say I'm a big fan of this patch. Can we somehow separate that > >> NMI page from the RTAS blob? Also I'd definitely prefer if we keep > >> rtas_entry == rtas_addr - if nothing else for the sake of backwards > >> compatibility. > >> > >> So how about we lay out the structure in memory like this: > >> > >> [ spapr-rtas.bin ] > >> [ padding to 4k boundary or whatever sPAPR requires ] > >> [ 4k NMI region ] > >> > >> Then the only thing we'd have to really change internally is the size > >> information of the rtas blob. > > > > Either we can have it like this or completely eliminate spapr-rtas.bin > > (and spapr-rtas.S) by simply allocating required space in QEMU and then > > patching the 5 instructions at rtas-entry as earlier discussed with David. > > > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-ppc/2014-08/msg00251.html > > > > I strongly disagree with David. Legally there is no difference between a > .bin file that contains code and an array made of instructions. And the > more target code we can keep outside of QEMU the better.
What do legalities have to do with it? -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgpgcqaRMTu2y.pgp
Description: PGP signature