From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 24 15:55:46 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B6572D7 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 635BD1CAB for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 667C7B968; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:55:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Neel Natu Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for S5 (soft power off) in bhyve Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:55:40 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20130906; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201312231443.39282.jhb@freebsd.org> <201312231708.45431.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201312231708.45431.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201312241055.40217.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:55:45 -0500 (EST) Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:55:46 -0000 On Monday, December 23, 2013 5:08:45 pm John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, December 23, 2013 5:01:45 pm Neel Natu wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > This looks good - thanks for adding this support! > > > > I noticed that the RESET_REGISTER is not being advertised in the FACP > > flags field. So, perhaps the access to 0xCF9 that you saw during > > testing was triggered by cpu_reset_real() as opposed to AcpiReset()? > > Yeah, that might explain why I had to comment out the 0x64 check in > bhyverun.c directly as AcpiReset() should take precedence before > cpu_reset_real() is invoked. I'll retest that tomorrow to make sure I have > the FACP correct. With that fixed, ACPI now resets via 0xcf9 before trying 0x64. -- John Baldwin