Some source files #include the same header more than
once for no good reason. Remove second #includes in
such cases.
Signed-off-by: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
This reverts commit 9953f8822c.
While Markus's analysis is entirely correct, there are 1.6 patches
that fix the bug for real and without requiring machine type hacks.
Let's think of the children who will have to read this code, and
avoid a complicated mess of semantics that differ between <1.5,
1.5, and >1.5.
Conflicts:
hw/i386/pc_piix.c
hw/i386/pc_q35.c
include/hw/i386/pc.h
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Message-id: 1368189483-7915-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
This changes the model number of 486 to 8 (DX4) which matches the
feature set presented, and actually has the CPUID instruction.
This adds a compatibility property, to keep model=0 on pc-*-1.4 and older.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
[AF: Add compat_props entry]
Tested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de>
X86CPU should have parent bus so it could provide bus for child APIC.
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de>
Use of a flash memory device for the BIOS was added in series "[PATCH
v10 0/8] PC system flash support", commit 4732dca..1b89faf, v1.1.
Flash vs. ROM is a guest-visible difference. Thus, flash use had to
be suppressed for machine types pc-1.0 and older. This was
accomplished by adding a dummy device "pc-sysfw" with property
"rom_only":
* Non-zero rom_only means "use ROM". Default for pc-1.0 and older.
* Zero rom_only means "maybe use flash". Default for newer machines.
Not only is the dummy device ugly, it was also retroactively added to
the older machine types! Fortunately, it's not guest-visible (thus no
immediate guest ABI breakage), and has no vmstate (thus no immediate
migration breakage). Breakage occurs only if the user unwisely
enables flash by setting rom_only to zero. Patch review FAIL #1.
Why "maybe use flash"? Flash didn't (and still doesn't) work with
KVM. Therefore, rom_only=0 really means "use flash, except when KVM
is enabled, use ROM". This is a Bad Idea, because it makes enabling/
disabling KVM guest-visible. Patch review FAIL #2.
Aside: it also precludes migrating between KVM on and off, but that's
not possible for other reasons anyway.
Fix as follows:
1. Change the meaning of rom_only=0 to mean "use flash, no ifs, buts,
or maybes" for pc-i440fx-1.5 and pc-q35-1.5. Don't change anything
for older machines (to remain bug-compatible).
2. Change the default value from 0 to 1 for these machines.
Necessary, because 0 doesn't work with KVM. Once it does, we can flip
the default back to 0.
3. Don't revert the retroactive addition of device "pc-sysfw" to older
machine types. Seems not worth the trouble.
4. Add a TODO comment asking for device "pc-sysfw" to be dropped once
flash works with KVM.
Net effect is that you get a BIOS ROM again even when KVM is disabled,
just like for machines predating the introduction of flash.
To get flash instead, use "--global pc-sysfw.rom_only=0".
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Message-id: 1365780303-26398-4-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Functions defined in acpi/ should be declared in
acpi.h
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Many of these should be cleaned up with proper qdev-/QOM-ification.
Right now there are many catch-all headers in include/hw/ARCH depending
on cpu.h, and this makes it necessary to compile these files per-target.
However, fixing this does not belong in these patches.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Michael Tokarev
Paolo Bonzini
Andreas Färber
Igor Mammedov
Hu Tao
Markus Armbruster
Michael S. Tsirkin