Em Tue, 30 Jul 2024 07:36:32 -0400 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> escreveu:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:24:30PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:45:58 +0200 > > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is one reference to ACPI 4.0 and several references > > > to ACPI 6.x versions. > > > > > > Update them to point to ACPI 6.5 whenever possible. > > > > when it comes to APCI doc comments, they should point to > > the 1st (earliest) revision that provides given feature/value/field/table. > > Yes. And the motivation is twofold. > First, guests are built against > old acpi versions. knowing in which version things appeared > helps us know which guests support a feature. Good point, but IMO, a comment like "since: ACPI 4.0" would be better, as the comment may not reflect the first version supporting such features, but, instead, when someone added support to a particular feature set. > Second, acpi guys keep churning out new versions. > It makes no sense to try and update to latest one, > it will soon get out of date again. True, but having it updated helps people adding new code to get things right. Anyway, I got your point, I'll drop this patch. > > > void acpi_build_hest(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, > > > const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id) > > > { > > > - AcpiTable table = { .sig = "HEST", .rev = 1, > > > + AcpiTable table = { .sig = "HEST", > > > + .rev = 1, /* ACPI 4.0 to 6.4 */ > > > .oem_id = oem_id, .oem_table_id = oem_table_id }; > > > > > > acpi_table_begin(&table, table_data); This hunk might still make sense, though. When double-checking the links against ACPI 6.5, I noticed that HEST now requires .rev = 2. There are some future incompatibilities, but the current implementation of acpi/ghes satisfies both rev 1 and ref 2 of HEST. Also, this is not relevant on Linux, as the revision is not checked there. So, currently this is not a problem. Thanks, Mauro
