On 20 August 2015 at 22:54, Andrew Jones wrote:
> If I understand correctly, then the concern is that vendors, ones which
> use QEMU code as their specification, will start building ACPI tables
> with ADR unnecessarily populated in the console uart's device table.
> Actually, some vendors must hav
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:09:57PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >>>Could somebody who understands ACPI and the ramifications
> >>>here let me know if I should apply this patch, please?
> >>>(since we're now post-2.4)
> >>
> >>I presume my opinion is clear, but I'm cc:ing some of the Linaro ACPI
> >
On 20 August 2015 at 11:18, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:24:39AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrot
On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> > In the least I wouldn't want to get burned twice, so I'd prefer to
>> > see the SPCR code actually get into Linux fi
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:21:31PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:09:57PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > >>>Could somebody who understands ACPI and the ramifications
> > >>>here let me know if I should apply this patch, please?
> > >>>(since we're now post-2.4)
> > >>
> >
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:24:39AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >> > In the least I wouldn't want to get burned tw
On 2015/8/20 18:48, G Gregory wrote:
On 20 August 2015 at 11:18, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:24:39AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:
On 2015/8/20 8:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
In the least I wouldn't want to get burned twice, so I'd prefer to
>>>
On 6 August 2015 at 14:25, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Yeah, now it's messy. I'm actually OK with this QEMU patch, with regard
> to the downstream stuff that I'm involved with, but other downstreams
> may not be so flexible... We need Peter to chime in with his opinion,
> CCed.
You've missed the boat f
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:55:14PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > > The _ADR entry in SPCR is optional and redundant. The same information
> > > is already provided in
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > The _ADR entry in SPCR is optional and redundant. The same information
> > is already provided in _CRS (which is mandatory).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm
> >
The _ADR entry in SPCR is optional and redundant. The same information
is already provided in _CRS (which is mandatory).
Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm
---
So, this _ADR entry is only consumed by a set of not-widely-circulated
patches for the Linux kernel. And while the ARM Server Base Boot
Requir
On 6 August 2015 at 14:19, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2015/8/6 20:28, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>>> >So, this _ADR entry is only consumed by a set of not-widely-circulated
>>> >patches for the Linux kernel. And while the ARM Server Base Boo
On 2015/8/6 20:28, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>The _ADR entry in SPCR is optional and redundant. The same information
>is already provided in _CRS (which is mandatory).
>
>Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm
>---
>
>So, this _ADR entry is only c
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:24:27PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> The _ADR entry in SPCR is optional and redundant. The same information
> is already provided in _CRS (which is mandatory).
>
> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm
> ---
>
> So, this _ADR entry is only consumed by a set of not-widely-circu
15 matches
Mail list logo
