On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:24:47AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
Thanks.
I pushed patch 1.
Patch 2 and 3 look okay to me - if there are no further comments I'll
push them.
I'm not sure
On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 10:00 -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Patch 2 and 3 look okay to me - if there are no further comments I'll
push them.
I think we're fairly happy with them. Laszlo put together the OVMF side
(creating ACPI 2.0 tables instead of 1.0 and filling in the RESET_REG)
and I've
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 04:28:06PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 10:00 -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Patch 2 and 3 look okay to me - if there are no further comments I'll
push them.
I think we're fairly happy with them. Laszlo put together the OVMF side
(creating ACPI
On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 11:38 -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 04:28:06PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-02-23 at 10:00 -0500, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
Patch 2 and 3 look okay to me - if there are no further comments I'll
push them.
I think we're fairly
From: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse david.woodho...@intel.com
---
src/byteorder.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/byteorder.h b/src/byteorder.h
index 5a8a64a..7362aeb 100644
--- a/src/byteorder.h
+++
