On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:40:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 13/04/2015 18:34, Corey Minyard wrote: > > > > I made this the same as the ACPI code, which you have to have as a > > > > callback if you are adding it to a common SSDT. > > > > > > Not really I think. > > > > The AML functions require that you have a tree to attach what you are > > adding. If you did your own SSDT, you wouldn't need a callback. You > > could add a binary blob that gets put into the SSDT, but I think that > > would require adding some AML functions. > > I very much prefer the callback idea. Long term it could be used by > more devices and possibly it could be turned into an AMLProvider QOM > interface. Then the ACPI builder could iterate on all QOM devices and > just ask which of them can provide some AML.
Yes, that would make sense. Devices which have a static AML could provide a static AML property, with very little code, those that have dynamic AML - dynamic AML property with more code. But I don't see callbacks as a step in that direction - more like code that will have to be ripped out later. I was looking for ways to remove dependencies for this patchset, not add them. > Also, tables are rebuilt when the firmware loads them, and handing in a > blob makes it harder to achieve this on-the-fly modification, compared > to callbacks. > > Paolo Well that's not true for smbios, is it? -- MST
