On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 06/06/16 15:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > I don't know why we need to disable ACPI because we can provide ACPI > > > tables but guest could choose to not use it. And for ARM32 domain, since > > > the linux guest kernel doesn't support ACPI, even we provide ACPI > > > tables, it can't use it, anyway. > > > > Memory usage. Simplicity: if you know you are not going to use ACPI, you > > might as well disable it to have one less moving piece (every line of > > code is potential for a bug). Guest configuration: if your guest > > operating system supports both ACPI and Device Tree and you want to be > > sure that Device Tree is the one that gets used, then you can do it by > > disabling ACPI at the VM level. Linux offers a command line option to do > > that, but other OSes might not and could choose ACPI by default. > > Other OSes would have the same problem on baremetal. A VM should reproduce the > baremetal behavior. If you have enabled both ACPI and DT in your kernel, then > you greed to let the kernel choose for you. > > However, I agree that an having option to enable/disable ACPI is useful. The > main use case would be embedded environment where ACPI will less used.
That's right. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
