On 11/21/23 20:00, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 04:27:34PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
We have two implementations of write_acpi_tables(). One for writing ACPI
tables based on ACPI_WRITER() entries another based on copying tables from
QEMU.
Create a symbol CONFIG_QFW_ACPI that signifies copying ACPI tables from
QEMU and use it consistently.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com>
---
v2:
new patch
---
drivers/misc/Kconfig | 7 +++++++
drivers/misc/qfw.c | 4 ++--
lib/acpi/Makefile | 2 +-
lib/acpi/acpi_writer.c | 4 ++--
4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
I still feel like this is a weird direction to go in and that:
diff --git a/lib/acpi/acpi_writer.c b/lib/acpi/acpi_writer.c
index 946f90e8e7..9b9fdc190b 100644
--- a/lib/acpi/acpi_writer.c
+++ b/lib/acpi/acpi_writer.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ int acpi_write_one(struct acpi_ctx *ctx, const struct
acpi_writer *entry)
return 0;
}
-#ifndef CONFIG_QEMU
+#ifndef CONFIG_QFW_ACPI
static int acpi_write_all(struct acpi_ctx *ctx)
{
const struct acpi_writer *writer =
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ ulong acpi_get_rsdp_addr(void)
return map_to_sysmem(gd->acpi_ctx->rsdp);
}
-#endif /* QEMU */
+#endif /* QFW_ACPI */
void acpi_setup_ctx(struct acpi_ctx *ctx, ulong start)
{
Will need to be tweaked later on still with some other symbol to denote
"ACPI tables were passed along on real hardware by $mechanism". But we
can cross that when we come to it.
QFW is only about QEMU. What I did here is separating the transfer of
ACPI tables from QEMU from the code co-used by the sandbox. Do you think
this is wrong?
Probably when booting U-Boot via Coreboot we should be able to copy ACPI
tables. But this will not involve QFW. Is there any code, yet, where
U-Boot is picking up ACPI tables from Coreboot?
In this case you would not set symbol CONFIG_GENERATE_ACPI_TABLES. Do we
really need yet another symbol?
Best regards
Heinrich
