On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 07:35:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 16:51 +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
>
> > + { "MSFT0001", 0},
>
> This seems wrong, and it looks like qemu agrees. Can you resubmit when
> there's agreement on the name?
My fault. The name should be "QEMU". I'll se
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:12:09PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Hu Tao wrote:
> > pvevent device is a qemu simulated device through which guest panic
> > event is sent to host.
> >
> > ref: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-03/msg02293.html
> >
> >
Il 15/03/2013 20:35, Matthew Garrett ha scritto:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 16:51 +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
>
>> +{ "MSFT0001", 0},
>
> This seems wrong, and it looks like qemu agrees. Can you resubmit when
> there's agreement on the name?
>
>> +acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "WRPT", &arg_list, NU
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Hu Tao wrote:
> pvevent device is a qemu simulated device through which guest panic
> event is sent to host.
>
> ref: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-03/msg02293.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Hu Tao
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig | 7 +++
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 16:51 +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> + { "MSFT0001", 0},
This seems wrong, and it looks like qemu agrees. Can you resubmit when
there's agreement on the name?
> + acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "WRPT", &arg_list, NULL);
Is there a spec for this?
Is the only reason for this
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 04:51:13PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> pvevent device is a qemu simulated device through which guest panic
> event is sent to host.
>
> ref: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-03/msg02293.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Hu Tao
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
pvevent device is a qemu simulated device through which guest panic
event is sent to host.
ref: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-03/msg02293.html
Signed-off-by: Hu Tao
---
drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig | 7 +++
drivers/platform/x86/Makefile | 2 +
drivers/platform/x86/
