On 22/05/2020, Igor Mammedow wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2020 18:02:07 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 13/05/20 17:34, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> I'd rather avoid using random IRQ numbers (considering we are
> dealing with black-box here). So if it's really necessary to have
> IRQ described here, I'd suggest to implement them in device model
> so they would be reserved and QEMU would error out in a sane way if
> IRQ conflict is detected.
We don't generally detect ISA IRQ conflicts though, do we?
that I don't know that's why I'm not suggesting how to do it.
The point is hard-coding in AML random IRQs is not right thing to do,
(especially with the lack of 'any' spec), as minimum AML should pull
it from device model and that probably should be configurable and set
by board.
Other thing is:
I haven't looked at VMBus device model in detail, but DSDT part aren't
matching device though (device model is not ISA device hence AML part
shouldn't be on in ISA scope), where to put it is open question.
There were other issues with AML code, I've commented on, so I was
waiting on respin with comments addressed.
I don't think that this patch is good enough for merging.
But it seems like the current patch does match what's Microsoft HyperV
is publishing in it's APCI tables.
I dont think it's correct for us to "fix" Microsoft emulation even if
it's wrong, since that's what Windows probably expects to see...
I tried looking where Microsoft uses the ACPI tables to identify the
VMBus but without much luck in order to understand how flexible a change
would be for the OS to still detect the VMBus device, but in general
I think "correcting" something that is emulated 1:1 because there is no
spec is the right way.
Paolo
