On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:43:04PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > ATM it looks like we should test > > > > "Windows 2000" || > > > > "Windows 2001" || > > > > "Windows 2001 SP1" || > > > > "Windows 2001.1 SP1" > > > > > > Including this may be too strict, what about 98/ME? > > > > Isn't this past EOL? > > So what? People try to use it with QEMU, and it's fair to assume > it's worse than XP.
I agree it's likely but I don't think we should presume anything until it's tested. > > > > && !( > > > > "Windows 2006" || > > > > "Windows 2006.1" || > > > > > > We know that these are all implied by the following four: > > > > > > > "Windows 2006 SP1" || > > > > "Windows 2006 SP2" || > > > > "Windows 2009" || > > > > "Windows 2012" || > > > > > > So it is not necessary to test these four. > > > > True, but I don't see how this can harm us, and > > I'm trying to check as much as possible. > > Fair enough. > > > > > "Linux" || > > > > "FreeBSD" > > > > ) && > > > > _OS == "Microsoft Windows NT" > > > > && > > > > _REV == 0x1 > > > > > > Testing _OS and _REV is probably too strict. > > > > Why too strict? We want to only affect very specific guests. > > whatever we don't know about, let's not touch it. > > In practice all OSes we care about will disguise themselves > as Windows. I checked Solaris now and it follows Linux's lead: > http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/intel/io/acpica/utilities/uteval.c?v=OPENSOLARIS;im=10 I'm still worried about using _OSI. This makes it a risky change, guests do change behaviour depending on which _OSI are called. No way to tell what this will do without lots of testing. I have an alternative idea: it looks like XP/2003 are the only OS-es which have _REV set to 0x1 which is the ancient API 1.0 spec. Maybe it's enough to check _REV == 1 and _OS == windows ? That's certainly lower risk from this POV, but need to check old Linux and other guests. > For whatever we don't know about, why should we assume 64-bit BARs > work? Especially considering it's likely to be pretty old guests. > > Paolo There's no need to assume 64 bit BARs works. But I think we can assume guests don't crash. What windows does here is very unusual imho, guest should just say "I can't use this range so I won't" and allocate BARs somewhere else. -- MST _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list [email protected] http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
