Hi Igor, The _STA method was added in response to Bibo's review comment on the original patch, where he explicitly suggested adding _STA.
I understand your concern that omitting _STA already implies 0x0f. However, the two review comments seem to suggest different approaches. I'm happy to split the changes into separate patches as required. For _STA, though, I'd appreciate it if we could first agree on whether it should be added or omitted, so I have a clear direction for the next version. Thanks, pillow On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 4:18 PM Igor Mammedov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:22:36 +0800 > pillow <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > @@ -325,7 +324,7 @@ static void build_uart_device_aml(Aml *table, int > index) > ... > > + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STA", aml_int(0x0f))); > > also is it really necessary? Doesn't missing _STA imply 0xF already? > > > crs = aml_resource_template(); > > aml_append(crs, > > aml_qword_memory(AML_POS_DECODE, AML_MIN_FIXED, AML_MAX_FIXED, > >
