[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250227082638.7db90257@foz.lan>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:26:38 +0100
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
Cc: "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
qemu-arm@...gnu.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@...aro.org>, Ani Sinha
<anisinha@...hat.com>, Eduardo Habkost <eduardo@...kost.net>, Marcel
Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@...il.com>, Peter Maydell
<peter.maydell@...aro.org>, Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhaosl@...il.com>, Yanan
Wang <wangyanan55@...wei.com>, Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/14] acpi/generic_event_device: add logic to detect
if HEST addr is available
Em Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:19:27 +0100
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> escreveu:
> Em Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:52:26 +0100
> Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com> escreveu:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 15:35:17 +0100
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
>
> > > diff --git a/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c b/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c
> > > index 5346cae573b7..14d8513a5440 100644
> > > --- a/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c
> > > +++ b/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c
> > > @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ static void acpi_ged_send_event(AcpiDeviceIf *adev, AcpiEventStatusBits ev)
> > >
> > > static const Property acpi_ged_properties[] = {
> > > DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("ged-event", AcpiGedState, ged_event_bitmap, 0),
> > > + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-has-hest-addr", AcpiGedState, ghes_state.use_hest_addr, false),
> >
> > you below set it for 9.2 to false, so
> > shouldn't it be set to true by default here?
>
> Yes, but it is too early to do that here, as the DSDT table was not
> updated to contain the GED device.
>
> We're switching it to true later on, at patch 11::
>
> d8c44ee13fbe ("arm/virt: Wire up a GED error device for ACPI / GHES")
Hmm... too many rebases that on my head things are becoming shady ;-)
Originally, this was setting it to true, but you requested to move it
to another patch during one of the patch reorder requests.
Anyway, after all those rebases, I guess it is now safe to set it
to true here without breaking bisectability. I'll move the hunk back
to this patch.
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists