On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:09:49AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:35:13AM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > > The code to generate basic SSDT code isn't that difficult (see > > build_ssdt and src/ssdt-proc.dsl). Is there a compelling reason to > > patch the DSDT versus just generating the necessary blocks in an SSDT? > > I don't really care whether the code is in DSDT or SSDT, > IMO there isn't much difference between build_ssdt and patching: > main reason is build_ssdt uses offsets hardcoded to a specific binary > (ssdt_proc and SD_OFFSET_* ) while I used > a script to extract offsets. Yes - your script to extract the offsets is nice. > I think we should avoid relying on copy-pasted binary > because I see the related ASL code changing in the near future > (with multifunction and bridge support among others). Can you expand on this? Would multi-function and bridge support make patching easier than dynamic SSDT generation? I'm a little leary of patching the DSDT - doubly so when the DSDT is creating dummy devices that are then dynamically patched out. (For example, even with your patch series there are still two devices defined with _ADR 1.) It seems more straight-forward to just create the devices that are needed. -Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
