Re: [Qemu-devel] [Linaro-acpi] [RFC PATCH 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Dynamic ACPI v5.1 table generation

[Claudio Fontana]

Hi all,

On 30.10.2014 19:02, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:52:44PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 30 October 2014 17:43, Alexander Spyridakis
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Currently, the virt machine model generates Device Tree information 
>>> dynamically based on the existing devices in the system. This patch series 
>>> extends the same concept but for ACPI information instead. A total of seven 
>>> tables have been
>>> implemented in this patch series, which is the minimum for a basic ARM 
>>> support.
>>>
>>> The set of generated tables are:
>>> - RSDP
>>> - XSDT
>>> - MADT
>>> - GTDT
>>> - FADT
>>> - FACS
>>> - DSDT
>>>
>>> The tables are created in standalone buffers, taking into account the
>>> needed information passed from the virt machine model. When the generation
>>> is finalized, the individual buffers are compacted to a single ACPI binary
>>> blob, where it is injected on the guest memory space in a fixed location.
>>> The guest kernel can find the ACPI tables by providing to it the physical
>>> address of the ACPI blob (e.g. acpi_rsdp=0x47000000 boot argument).
>>
>> (Sorry, I should have waited for the cover letter to arrive before replying.)
>>
>> I think this is definitely the wrong approach. We already have to
>> generate device tree information for the hardware we have, and having
>> an equivalent parallel infrastructure for generating ACPI as well
>> seems like it would be a tremendous mess. We should support guests
>> that require ACPI by having QEMU boot a UEFI bios blob and have that
>> UEFI code generate ACPI tables based on the DTB we hand it.
>> (Chances seem good that any guest that wants ACPI is going to want
>> UEFI runtime services anyway.)
> 
> Depending on why people want ACPI in a guest environment, generating
> ACPI tables from a DTB might not be possible (e.g. if they want to use
> AML for some reason).
> 
> So the important question is _why_ the guest needs to see an ACPI
> environment. What exactly can ACPI provide to the guest that DT does not
> already provide, and why is that necessary? What infrastrucutre is
> needed for that use case?
> 
> Translating DT tables into the equivalent ACPI tables seems like a waste
> of effort unless it enables something we can't do at the moment.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

Please correct me if I am wrong, my understanding at the moment is that
for X86 there is an ACPI implementation in hw/acpi, with the table generation
happening in hw/i386/acpi-build.c .
Couldn't there be some unification where part of the infrastructure for
ACPI is reused, with arch-specific code specializing for X86 and ARM?
Why are ACPI tables created for X86, but cannot be created likewise for ARM?

We need ACPI guest support in QEMU for AArch64 over here, with all features
(including the ability to run ACPI code and add specific tables), for
ACPI-based guests.

Thanks,

Claudio