On Mon, 2023-04-17 at 14:14 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 01:46:01PM +0200, Corvin Köhne wrote:
> > It's much easier to create configuration dependend ACPI tables for
> > bhyve
> > than for OVMF. For this reason, don't use the statically created
> > ACPI
> > tables provided by OVMF. Instead prefer the dynamically created
> > ACPI
> > tables of bhyve. If bhyve provides no ACPI tables or we are unable
> > to
> > detect those, fall back to OVMF tables.
> > 
> > Ideally, we use the qemu fwcfg interface to pass the ACPI tables
> > from
> > bhyve to OVMF. bhyve will support this in the future. However,
> > current
> > bhyve executables don't support passing ACPI tables by the qemu
> > fwcfg
> > interface. They just copy the ACPI into main memory. For that
> > reason,
> > pick up the ACPI tables from main memory.
> > 
> > Implementation is similar to OvmfPkg/XenAcpiPlatformDxe/Xen.c.
> 
> Can both Xen and Bhyve share the same implementation?
> 
> Given in both cases RAM is scanned for the RSDP I'd expect it should
> not be very hard and we avoid duplicating the code.
> 
> take care,
>   Gerd
> 

Hi Gerd,

thanks for your reply. It's mostly the same code. Only the start and
end of the scanned range differ. So, it does make sense to share the
same implementation.
Where's the right place for this shared implementation? Is it
"OvmfPkg/Library"?


-- 
Kind regards,
Corvin