Il 20/01/2014 22:25, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto:
Implementation Note
Place the routine that identifies the operating system in an _INI method
under the \_SB scope so that _OSI can run as early as possible. This
placement is important because the operating system makes features
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 20/01/2014 22:25, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto:
Implementation Note
Place the routine that identifies the operating system in an _INI method
under the \_SB scope so that _OSI can run as early as possible. This
Il 21/01/2014 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think it is safe to assume that no OSPM will do those crazy things
with OS-defined _OSI strings (it's quite plausible that they do it with
feature _OSI strings).
First, because IMHO it is completely insane.
Insane, yes.
This is
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:25:18PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And later:
Device (HPET) {
...
Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized) {
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/01/2014 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think it is safe to assume that no OSPM will do those crazy things
with OS-defined _OSI strings (it's quite plausible that they do it with
feature _OSI strings).
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:13:11PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/01/2014 22:44, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto:
1. hardcode IRQNoFlags(){2, 8} and require
Il 20/01/2014 12:58, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think at this point I agree.
I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs
are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they
need to try and emulate the OS probed.
Source?
Paolo
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:10:16 -0500
Gabriel L. Somlo gso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:13:11PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/01/2014 22:44, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto:
1. hardcode IRQNoFlags(){2, 8}
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:57:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 20/01/2014 12:58, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think at this point I agree.
I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs
are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they
Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs
are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they
need to try and emulate the OS probed.
Source?
Paolo
For example, this one
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:16:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs
are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they
need to try and emulate the
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:16:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI: OSPMs
are known to do crazy things when they see _OSI, such as assuming they
need to try and emulate
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:54:15PM -0500, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:16:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 20/01/2014 13:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
I think the hack looking for the SMC device is safer than _OSI:
OSPMs
are known to do crazy things
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31:56PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And later:
Device (HPET) {
...
Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized) {
If (LGreaterEqual (OSYS, 0x07D1)) {
If
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:13:11PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 09/01/2014 22:44, Gabriel L. Somlo ha scritto:
1. hardcode IRQNoFlags(){2, 8} and require -no-hpet to prevent XP
from bluescreening. Basically, this
15 matches
Mail list logo
