>>> On 07.07.16 at 11:14, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > On 07/07/16 09:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 06.07.16 at 18:32, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> On 07/06/2016 12:04 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:04:59PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>>> * Don't set HW_REDUCED_ACPI flags: this flag is only available starting >>>>> with ACPI v5 >>>> Hm, I still think HW_REDUCED_ACPI should be set for the time being, >>>> considering that we don't provide PM timer or RTC for example. Not setting >>>> this would be a violation of the ACPI specification, and would mean >>>> introducing Xen specific hacks yet again to guest OSes, in order to disable >>>> those devices. >>>> >>>> Is the fact that HW_REDUCED_ACPI was introduced in ACPI v5 a problem? >>> >>> Yes, because we build v2 tables and they are somewhat different. >> >> So couldn't we switch to building v5 tables (or even v6) for PVH >> (and perhaps re-using the "acpi=" config setting to allow specifying a >> version - with any value above 1 indicating the requested version)? I >> certainly agree that setting a v5 flag in a v2 table is bad (best we can >> hope for is that any consumer would ignore such a flag). > > FWIW, if we switch to ACPI v5.1 or later, it will be easier to merge the > ACPI building code with ARM.
I don't think we can outright switch to v5 or newer on x86 - old guests (say WinXP) may not be able to deal with that. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
