On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:36:57AM -0300, Paulo Alcantara wrote: > > On Mon, June 22, 2015 9:11 am, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:45:31AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 22/06/2015 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > Given that support is known to be partial, would it make sense > >> > to keep it disabled by default for 2.4? > >> > >> What is partial about it? > > > > Ow, looks like I didn't send out the response to the patch itself. > > Will do. > > > >> In fact, considering that q35 behavior is > >> still experimental it makes no sense to even make it conditional. > > > > I agree to this, though an option to disable seems useful for debugging, > > so I'm glad that Paulo implemented it. It's probably not strictly > > required to disable for old machine types, but why not. > > > >> We > >> discussed this on IRC and I was hoping to hear you reply "sorry, I was > >> wrong". Instead, I get this. > >> > >> Michael, I'm seriously getting annoyed by this behavior. Stop scaring > >> away contributors. > >> > >> Paolo > > > > Doing my best here, but I do think we need to be careful about merging > > things at this stage to avoid delaying the release. > > > >> > This way in 2.5 we won't need to add more flags to stay bug > >> compatible. > > Hi Michael, > > I have seen no use other than watchdog functionality of TCO. The reason I > wrote it was because I was working on an internal project that needed TCO > to generate SMI so that my registered SW SMI handler in firmware would get > executed. If, at that time, I had it supported on QEMU that would > certainly have saved a lot of time instead testing it on bare hardware :-) > > Given that, I think it's OK for me to enable it by default on pc-q35-2.4 > and later. > > Thanks, > > Paulo
OK. Do you agree to move the ACPI bits to the SSDT, making it conditional on device being enabled? > -- > Paulo Alcantara, C.E.S.A.R > Speaking for myself only.
