On 02/18/16 15:20, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Hi
> Thanks to bring this 4G issue again. I have several thought for your
> consideration.
>
> 1) At 12/16/2015, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
> submitted a patch:
> [edk2] [PATCH] IntelFrameworkModulePkg : Allow ACPI tables to get
1.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Zeng, Star
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
On 18 February 2016 at 16:44, Yao, Jiewen <jiewen@intel.com> wrote:
> I found PI spec vol 5 has below definition in EF
sts.01.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
> Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Zeng, Star; Yao, Jiewen
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
> allocation limit optional
>
> XSDT is introduced in ACPI2.0.
> ACPI1.0/ACPI1.0b only defined 32bit address range. ACPI2
Cc: Tian, Feng; Graeme Gregory; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Zeng, Star; Yao, Jiewen
Subject: RE: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
XSDT is introduced in ACPI2.0.
ACPI1.0/ACPI1.0b only defined 32bit addr
, Star
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
On 18 February 2016 at 16:07, Yao, Jiewen <jiewen@intel.com> wrote:
> Or PcdAcpiSupportVersion, bit0 as ACPI1.0.
> Bit0 set means allocation Below4G.
> Bit0 clear means
t;
> -Original Message-
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard
> Biesheuvel
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:39 PM
> To: Yao, Jiewen
> Cc: Tian, Feng; Graeme Gregory; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
> Liming; La
Lindholm; Gao,
Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Zeng, Star; Yao, Jiewen
Subject: RE: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
Thanks to detail explain. I understand and I agree with you that fragmentation
is problem.
So basically, I agree on PCD solution
Lindholm; Gao,
Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Zeng, Star
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
On 18 February 2016 at 15:20, Yao, Jiewen <jiewen@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi
> Thanks to bring this 4G issue again. I have several thou
;leif.lindh...@linaro.org>; Gao, Liming <liming@intel.com>;
Zeng, Star <star.z...@intel.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
Yes. Good question: to PCD or not t
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard
> Biesheuvel
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 1:42 AM
> To: Laszlo Ersek
> Cc: Tian, Feng; Graeme Gregory; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
> Liming; Zeng, Star
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC P
Of Ard
Biesheuvel
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 1:42 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek
Cc: Tian, Feng; Graeme Gregory; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
Liming; Zeng, Star
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
On 17 Februar
rg>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org>;
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen@intel.com>;
Gao, Liming <liming@intel.com>; Zeng, Star <star.z...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe:
edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Leif Lindholm; Gao,
Liming; Zeng, Star
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH] MdeModulePkg: AcpiTableDxe: make 4 GB table
allocation limit optional
On 17 February 2016 at 18:40, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/17/16 18:23, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>&g
On 17 February 2016 at 18:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/17/16 18:23, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 17 February 2016 at 18:07, Graeme Gregory
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/02/2016 16:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 02/17/16 16:34, Ard Biesheuvel
On 02/17/16 18:23, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 February 2016 at 18:07, Graeme Gregory
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/02/2016 16:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/17/16 16:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 17 February 2016 at 16:11, Laszlo Ersek
On 02/17/16 18:07, Graeme Gregory wrote:
>
>
> On 17/02/2016 16:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/17/16 16:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 17 February 2016 at 16:11, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 02/17/16 15:48, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> AARCH64 systems never require
On 17 February 2016 at 18:07, Graeme Gregory wrote:
>
>
> On 17/02/2016 16:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>> On 02/17/16 16:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 February 2016 at 16:11, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 02/17/16 15:48, Ard Biesheuvel
On 02/17/16 16:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 February 2016 at 16:11, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/17/16 15:48, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> AARCH64 systems never require compatibility with legacy ACPI OSes, and
>>> may not have any 32-bit addressable system RAM. To support
On 17 February 2016 at 16:11, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/17/16 15:48, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> AARCH64 systems never require compatibility with legacy ACPI OSes, and
>> may not have any 32-bit addressable system RAM. To support ACPI on these
>> systems, we need to be able to
On 02/17/16 15:48, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> AARCH64 systems never require compatibility with legacy ACPI OSes, and
> may not have any 32-bit addressable system RAM. To support ACPI on these
> systems, we need to be able to relax the 4 GB allocation restriction.
>
> So add a PCD
20 matches
Mail list logo