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

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 12 November 2014 10:56:40 Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:08:55AM +0000, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> > On 11.11.2014 16:29, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > 
> > I tend to mostly agree with this, we might look for alternative
> > solutions for speeding up guest startup in the future but in general
> > if getting ACPI in the guest for ARM64 requires also getting UEFI,
> > then I can personally live with that, especially if we strive to have
> > the kind of optimized virtualized UEFI you mention.
> 
> Given that UEFI will be required for other guests (e.g. if you want to
> boot a distribution's ISO image), I hope that virtualised UEFI will see
> some optimisation work.

I think the requirement it just for KVM to provide something that
behaves exactly like UEFI, it doesn't have to be the full Tianocore
implementation if it's easier to reimplement the boot interface.

> > As mentioned by others, I'd rather see an implementation of ACPI in
> > QEMU which learns from the experience of X86 (and possibly shares some
> > code if possible), rather than going in a different direction by
> > creating device trees first, and then converting them to ACPI tables
> > somewhere in the firmware, just because device trees are "already
> > there", for the reasons which have already been mentioned before by
> > Igor and others.
> 
> For the features which ACPI provides which device trees do not (e.g. the
> dynamic addition and removal of memory and CPUs), there will need to be
> some sort of interface between QEMU and the ACPI implementation. That's
> already outside of the realm of DT, so as previously mentioned a simple
> conversion doesn't cover the general case.

I think we need to support the low-level interfaces in the kernel for
this anyway, we should not have to use ACPI just to do memory and CPU
hotplugging in KVM, that would be silly. If ACPI is present, it can
provide a wrapper for the same interface, but KVM should not need to
be aware of the fact that ACPI is used in the guest, after it has
passed the initial ACPI blob to the kernel.

> I think any ACPI implemenation for a hypervisor should provide a
> demonstrable useful feature (e.g. hot-add of CPUs) before merging so we
> know the infrastructure is suitable.

> > I wouldn't want for ACPI to be "sort of" supported in QEMU, but with a
> > limited functionality which makes it not fully useful in practice. I'd
> > rather see it as a first class citizen instead, including the ability
> > to run AML code.
> 
> I agree that there's no point in having ACPI in a guest unless it
> provides something which dt does not. I don't know how it should be
> structured to provide those useful features.

I see it the opposite way: we shouldn't have to use ACPI just to make
use of some feature in Linux, the only reason why you'd want ACPI support
in KVM is to be able to run Windows. It makes sense for the ACPI
implementation to be compatible with the Linux ACPI code as well so
we can test it better.

        Arnd