On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 at 10:13, Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 10:08:32AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 at 10:21, Li Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Li Chen <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > virt machines always instantiate a PL011/16550 UART at slot 0 and describe
> > > it in ACPI (DSDT and optional SPCR table). When the command line disables
> > > the serial backend (e.g. "-serial none"), the guest still sees the UART as
> > > a preferred console even though it is not usable.
> > >
> > > Teach the virt ACPI code to omit the UART device and SPCR when there is no
> > > serial backend attached. This matches the hardware that the guest can
> > > actually use and avoids confusing firmware or OS code that relies on SPCR.
> > >
> > > The bios-tables-test qtests rely on an ACPI UART node and SPCR entry for
> > > UEFI-based virt machines. To keep those tests working we create a UART
> > > with a "null" chardev backend instead. This preserves the ACPI tables
> > > while discarding the firmware's serial output so it does not corrupt the
> > > TAP stdout stream.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Li Chen <[email protected]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Sunil V L <[email protected]>
> >
> > Sorry, I must have missed this patch previously. I'm not sure that
> > this is a good idea, because it means:
> >  * the dtb version of virt and the ACPI handling diverge
> >  * we tangle up "what chardev do you want to connect serial output to"
> >    and "what UARTs does the guest see"
> >
> > If the user explicitly sends the first serial port output
> > to nowhere with "-serial none -serial stdio" they presumably
> > had a reason for that and won't be happy to find that we've
> > adjusted the ACPI tables to redirect that output to the
> > second serial port they were planning to use for something else.

> presumably, things would be different with -nodefaults?

-nodefaults doesn't generally do much on Arm boards, because
we don't have a lot of "pluggable thing that's plugged in by
default" that we would turn off -- that's more of an x86 thing.

On the virt board the UART situation is a bit complicated,
for command-line backwards compatibility reasons:

 * the first UART always exists
 * if you're emulating the security extensions, the second
   UART always exists (and is the secure-world UART)
 * otherwise, the second UART exists only if the user
   configured a second serial backend (i.e. provided
   "-serial foo -serial bar" or similar)

If I were designing it again from scratch without the
back-compat baggage, it would probably have three always-exists
UARTs, one for secure-world and two for normal-world.

thanks
-- PMM

Reply via email to