From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC25A80436 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id m27so42714682iti.1 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2YWPAyUU/9HYbjYP0w0yAt4LO7oM2lbRTAWaN0gUtf0=; b=fLmZshU0gAs6vPkJ1s476ktUAl3MOZlh54ElVsmKDSlDid1GDOaobAIbpma6FOrupf Us78Jjbv4acjwN2iFucdzotCquhsc0CRRb9H8+1pwKX2vLQbnq24EDlZ+tc3PyNevFBf bQV5MMk6UyMQvsIZGtyHPE4NAdxb8EX7ViNjs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2YWPAyUU/9HYbjYP0w0yAt4LO7oM2lbRTAWaN0gUtf0=; b=DaG0Ax1NHHf+E5qYaRKbiOtkN9dcTmJsJ4Dgbo4Kdp0yokruvtd++I/5pgFFutBuk0 b+jzScsHLbEjNMmSW4NMv9A2aSn848iE3sLsYZLd8pJkIC4+NAQaDpUeDCXxiJkMqghW /BYCjYqwSI2aO7Hbj16zQHJq5EwlrWAEAW58N2m1JUnYNUBEeFNvZtK0MWUhhger6C5g 0ORKDdrV6wQTOtc8Dpa5Ds6le5Qnnu41wYhhdEcJQATgN70h2NB7CrJDJgsDwxE6U9Xz GzZlT+It8SF3e+TGFYqty/9VdFiMJrfhJ9vhpYMjNl6yz1+eIWl96+ffbvLQ5A4heD+N to1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H045psREIA3b0Mw4Q9K8MxRekoRyqAOy6LAsvc3e6WYo6Ts0UGcA/sxqvmGnD0z5WmePnqIjb574dgBlbS0 X-Received: by 10.107.141.134 with SMTP id p128mr9841086iod.83.1489786040194; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.10.27 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:27:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170317204731.31488-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20170317204731.31488-12-lersek@redhat.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:27:19 +0000 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel-01 , Leif Lindholm Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] ArmVirtPkg/PlatformHasAcpiDtDxe: don't expose DT if QEMU provides ACPI X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:27:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 17 March 2017 at 21:25, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 03/17/17 22:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 17 March 2017 at 20:47, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> This will let QEMU's "-no-acpi" option exclusively expose DT vs. ACPI to >>> the guest. Showing both is never needed (it is actually detrimental to the >>> adoption of standards, such as SBSA / SBBR). >>> >>> * Without "-no-acpi", the firmware logs (from PlatformHasAcpiDtDxe) >>> >>>> Found FwCfg @ 0x9020008/0x9020000 >>>> Found FwCfg DMA @ 0x9020010 >>>> InstallProtocolInterface: [EdkiiPlatformHasAcpiProtocol] 0 >>> >>> plus the usual messages. Later the guest kernel logs >>> >>>> [ 0.000000] efi: SMBIOS 3.0=0x13bdb0000 ACPI 2.0=0x138440000 >> >> Why is there no MEMATTR table in this case? Or was it omitted for brevity? > > I don't have the slightest clue. What is the MEMATTR table? > > ... Hm, grepping the kernel, it's apparently the memory attributes > table. You added it in the following kernel commit: > > a604af075a32 ("efi: Add support for the EFI_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES_TABLE > config table", 2016-04-25) > > and it is part of release v4.7. > > Ah, I understand now. I used two kernels (two guests) for testing this, > namely "4.7.7-200.fc24.aarch64" and "4.5.0-15.el7.aarch64". > > And, from the logs I collected, the "-no-acpi" log belongs to the Fedora > kernel, which has your MEMATTR patch; while the log without "-no-acpi" > (above) belongs to the RHEL-7.3 kernel, which does *not* have your > MEMATTR patch. > > I've now removed "-no-acpi" from the Fedora 24 guest's config, and > repeated the test. It prints: > > [ 0.000000] efi: SMBIOS 3.0=0x13bdb0000 ACPI 2.0=0x138440000 > MEMATTR=0x13a689018 > > If you wish (and I don't have to submit a v3 for any other reason), I > can refresh the above line in the commit message. > I was only concerned that these changes would affect whether the table was published or not. But apparently not. Thanks for double checking.