On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:36:54 -0600 "Jason A. Donenfeld" <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> SSDTs cannot address 64-bit physical addresses in 32-bit tables, so we please clarify what accesses waht within tables (i.e. be more concrete). > increment the revision to '2' so that these larger addresses are > addressable. This matters because the DSDT revision represents the > maximum capability of all other SSDTs. This is also what arm does. it was keept at 1 for compat reasons with WindowsXP. by now it is long time EOL, so it might be fine to bump version, but it would be nice to know if this change breaks XP or not? > > Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> > --- > hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index 900f786d08..51420d90a8 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -2073,7 +2073,7 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > g_array_append_vals(table_data, dsdt->buf->data, dsdt->buf->len); > build_header(linker, table_data, > (void *)(table_data->data + table_data->len - dsdt->buf->len), > - "DSDT", dsdt->buf->len, 1, NULL, NULL); > + "DSDT", dsdt->buf->len, 2, NULL, NULL); > free_aml_allocator(); > } >
