Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [HVM] [RFC] Moving the e820 table creation into hvmloader

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/08/2006
10:57:33 AM:

> On 8/11/06 15:06, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> > Correct. A bunch of complexity there for
negligible benefit that I can see.
> 
> In that case libxc should #include the acpi2_0.h and get its 
> ACPI_PHYSICAL_BASE & ACPI_TABLE_SIZE parameters from there. 
> 
> Or hvmloader can grok the e820 enough to find where it ought to 
> place the ACPI tables. That can be done with much less code than is

> required to arbitrarily insert/delete entries
in the e820 (which is 
> what I think we can do without). In fact hvmloader can also easily
> change the size of an existing ACPI e820 entry. So we’d end up with
> libxc selecting the ACPI base address, and hvmloader picking that
up

That base address needs to be the same value as the
static ACPI tables were built for. Unfortunately the tables are address-dependent.
So they really should use the same #define...

> and poking the length. This seems a reasonable
split of duties to 
> me, and can be done with a small patch.
> 
> I presume your immediate problem is simply that currently the e820
> entry specifies 4kB for the ACPI region, but you need more if you
> append the TPM SSDT?

Yes, it's this SSDT that needs some more memory. Also
that other spec that I'd like to support requires a space of 64kb for logs.
I can live with less than that, for example 10kb.

   Stefan

> 
>  -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel