Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 31/35] arm : acpi map status override table to dom0

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

On 05/02/2015 19:47, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 16:27 +0530, Parth Dixit wrote:
> > > > +    stao->header.length = sizeof(struct acpi_table_header) + 1;
> > > > +    stao->header.checksum = 0;
> > > > +    ACPI_MEMCPY(stao->header.oem_id, "LINARO", 6);
> > > > +    ACPI_MEMCPY(stao->header.oem_table_id, "RTSMVEV8", 8);
> > >
> > > I though the plan was to use a Xen OEM ID?
> > yes, but its not clear what should be used as xen oem id is not finalized yet.
> Are these IDs the ones defined for x86 in
> tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/acpi2_0.h:
>          #define ACPI_OEM_ID             "Xen"
>          #define ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID       "HVM"
>          #define ACPI_OEM_REVISION       0
>
>          #define ACPI_CREATOR_ID         ASCII32('H','V','M','L') /* HVMLoader 
> */
>          #define ACPI_CREATOR_REVISION   0
>
> ? If so we should reuse them, although maybe not OEM_TABLE_ID and
> CREATOR_ID since those are x86/HVM specific.
I didn't know that HVMLoader was using one.

"XenVMM" was decided for ARM (see see 
http://wiki.xenproject.org/mediawiki/images/c/c4/Xen-environment-table.pdf).
Although, it would be good to have a single OEM ID for Xen project.

> What is the process for assigning those? Given our unique OEM_ID are we
> allowed to just declare them ourselves?
Stefano sent an email to the ACPI guys to know the process. I guess the 
x86 one has not been declared?
Regards,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel