[SeaBIOS] [PATCH] acpi: hide 64-bit PCI hole for Windows XP

Michael S. Tsirkin mst at redhat.com
Tue Aug 6 16:39:01 CEST 2013


On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:11:41PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> > > From my quick research, it looks like "Windows 2006" || "Windows
> > > 2006.1" || "Linux" would work, but I have not tested it.
> > > 
> > > Paolo
> > 
> > This doesn't work in that it matches linux.
> 
> Note that the above was meant to be a condition for when to _show_
> the PCI hole, i.e. negated compared to your example.
> 
> > ATM it looks like we should test
> >         "Windows 2000" ||
> >         "Windows 2001" ||
> >         "Windows 2001 SP1" ||
> > 	"Windows 2001.1 SP1"
> 
> Including this may be too strict, what about 98/ME?

Isn't this past EOL?
I think we shouldn't touch whatever we don't know about.


> > 	&& !(
> >         "Windows 2006" ||
> >         "Windows 2006.1" ||
> 
> We know that these are all implied by the following four:
> 
> >         "Windows 2006 SP1" ||
> >         "Windows 2006 SP2" ||
> >         "Windows 2009" ||
> >         "Windows 2012" ||
> 
> So it is not necessary to test these four.

True, but I don't see how this can harm us, and
I'm trying to check as much as possible.

> > 	"Linux" ||
> > 	"FreeBSD"
> > 	) &&
> > 	_OS == "Microsoft Windows NT"
> > 	&&
> > 	_REV == 0x1
> 
> Testing _OS and _REV is probably too strict.

Why too strict? We want to only affect very specific guests.
whatever we don't know about, let's not touch it.

> > This should match XP and 2003 as tightly as possible.
> > Please note "Linux" is there just in case, modern
> > Linux OSPM does not identify itself as "Linux".
> 
> Yeah, I know.  I didn't know about FreeBSD, and I agree it is
> better to include it just in case.
> 
> Paolo



More information about the SeaBIOS mailing list