| Message ID | 1466651824-6964-8-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On 23/06/16 16:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote: [...] >> +static void make_acpi_gtdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom) >> +{ >> + struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt; >> + size_t size = sizeof(*gtdt); >> + >> + gtdt = libxl__zalloc(gc, size); >> + >> + gtdt->non_secure_el1_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_PHYS_NS_PPI; >> + gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags = >> + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) >> + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); >> + gtdt->virtual_timer_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_VIRT_PPI; >> + gtdt->virtual_timer_flags = >> + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) >> + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); >> + >> + make_acpi_header(>dt->header, "GTDT", size, 2); >> + >> + acpitables[GTDT].table = gtdt; >> + acpitables[GTDT].size = size; >> + /* Align to 64bit. */ >> + dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[GTDT].size, 3); >> +} > > Many of this tables look pretty much static. Any reason why we can't > define them and initialize them on an header somewhere like: > > struct acpi_gtdt xen_acpi_gtdt { > .non_secure_el1_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_PHYS_NS_PPI; > .non_secure_el1_flags = (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) | (ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); > .virtual_timer_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_VIRT_PPI; > .virtual_timer_flags = (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE)|(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); > }; > > it would make the code shorter and easier to read. I agree with Stefano on this point. >> int libxl__prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info, >> libxl__domain_build_state *state, >> struct xc_dom_image *dom) >> @@ -132,6 +159,7 @@ int libxl__prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info, >> >> make_acpi_rsdp(gc, dom); >> make_acpi_xsdt(gc, dom); >> + make_acpi_gtdt(gc, dom); >> >> return 0; >> } >> -- >> 2.0.4 >> >> > Regards,
Hi Shannon, On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote: > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > > Construct GTDT table with the interrupt information of timers. > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> > --- > tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c > index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644 > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c > @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64; > #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM" > #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen " > > +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 > +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW (u8) 0x01 > + Why did not you include actypes.h rather than define these two defines? > enum { > RSDP, > XSDT, > @@ -110,6 +113,30 @@ static void make_acpi_xsdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom) > dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[XSDT].size, 3); > } > > +static void make_acpi_gtdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom) > +{ > + struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt; > + size_t size = sizeof(*gtdt); > + > + gtdt = libxl__zalloc(gc, size); > + > + gtdt->non_secure_el1_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_PHYS_NS_PPI; > + gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags = > + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) > + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); > + gtdt->virtual_timer_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_VIRT_PPI; > + gtdt->virtual_timer_flags = > + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) > + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); > + > + make_acpi_header(>dt->header, "GTDT", size, 2); > + > + acpitables[GTDT].table = gtdt; > + acpitables[GTDT].size = size; > + /* Align to 64bit. */ > + dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[GTDT].size, 3); I am not sure how ROUNDUP(..., 3) will align to 64-bit. > +} > + > int libxl__prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info, > libxl__domain_build_state *state, > struct xc_dom_image *dom) > @@ -132,6 +159,7 @@ int libxl__prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info, > > make_acpi_rsdp(gc, dom); > make_acpi_xsdt(gc, dom); > + make_acpi_gtdt(gc, dom); > > return 0; > } > Regards,
On 23/06/16 17:26, Julien Grall wrote: >> enum { >> RSDP, >> XSDT, >> @@ -110,6 +113,30 @@ static void make_acpi_xsdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct >> xc_dom_image *dom) >> dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[XSDT].size, 3); >> } >> >> +static void make_acpi_gtdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom) >> +{ >> + struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt; >> + size_t size = sizeof(*gtdt); >> + >> + gtdt = libxl__zalloc(gc, size); >> + >> + gtdt->non_secure_el1_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_PHYS_NS_PPI; >> + gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags = >> + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << >> ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) >> + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << >> ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); >> + gtdt->virtual_timer_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_VIRT_PPI; >> + gtdt->virtual_timer_flags = >> + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << >> ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) >> + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << >> ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); >> + >> + make_acpi_header(>dt->header, "GTDT", size, 2); >> + >> + acpitables[GTDT].table = gtdt; >> + acpitables[GTDT].size = size; >> + /* Align to 64bit. */ >> + dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[GTDT].size, 3); > > I am not sure how ROUNDUP(..., 3) will align to 64-bit. Hmmm I found why. The ROUNDUP macro in libxl is taking an order which is odd. Cheers,
Hi Shannon, On 27/06/16 02:44, Shannon Zhao wrote: > On 2016/6/24 0:26, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>> >>> Construct GTDT table with the interrupt information of timers. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>> index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644 >>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64; >>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM" >>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen " >>> >>> +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 >>> +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW (u8) 0x01 >>> + >> >> Why did not you include actypes.h rather than define these two defines? > If we include actypes.h, there will be some compiling errors. > > ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:55:2: error: #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH > not defined > #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH not defined > ^ > ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:130:9: error: unknown type name > 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64' > typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64 UINT64; > ^ > ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:131:9: error: unknown type name > 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64' > typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 INT64; > ^ > ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:202:2: error: #error unknown > ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH > #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH > ^ > ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:207:9: error: unknown type name > 'acpi_native_uint' > typedef acpi_native_uint acpi_size; > ^ > ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:617:3: error: unknown type name > 'acpi_io_address' > acpi_io_address pblk_address; > > Yeah, it maybe can be solved by defining ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH and > COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 here, but since we only needs > ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE and ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW, I think it's ok to define them > here. We should avoid to redefine value as much as possible. The 2 missing values are easy to define (see below) so there is no point to redefine in a less obvious way: no comment to explain what the values are for, and only a part of the set defined. #define ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH BITS_PER_LONG #define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 int64_t Wei, Ian, Stefano, do you have any opinions? Regards,
Hi Shannon, On 29/06/2016 10:29, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2016/6/27 18:17, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 27/06/16 02:44, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> On 2016/6/24 0:26, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> Construct GTDT table with the interrupt information of timers. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64; >>>>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM" >>>>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen " >>>>> >>>>> +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 >>>>> +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW (u8) 0x01 >>>>> + >>>> >>>> Why did not you include actypes.h rather than define these two defines? >>> If we include actypes.h, there will be some compiling errors. >>> >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:55:2: error: #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>> not defined >>> #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH not defined >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:130:9: error: unknown type name >>> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64' >>> typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64 UINT64; >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:131:9: error: unknown type name >>> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64' >>> typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 INT64; >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:202:2: error: #error unknown >>> ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>> #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:207:9: error: unknown type name >>> 'acpi_native_uint' >>> typedef acpi_native_uint acpi_size; >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:617:3: error: unknown type name >>> 'acpi_io_address' >>> acpi_io_address pblk_address; >>> >>> Yeah, it maybe can be solved by defining ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH and >>> COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 here, but since we only needs >>> ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE and ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW, I think it's ok to define them >>> here. >> >> We should avoid to redefine value as much as possible. The 2 missing >> values are easy to define (see below) so there is no point to redefine >> in a less obvious way: no comment to explain what the values are for, >> and only a part of the set defined. >> >> #define ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH BITS_PER_LONG >> #define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 int64_t >> > Actually not work. I add below codes but get compiling errors as well. > So it needs the BITS_PER_LONG but it exists asm-arm/config.h Give a look to bitperlongs.h in /usr/include. Although the name is __BITS_PER_LONG. Regards,
On 2016年06月29日 17:42, Julien Grall wrote: > On 29/06/2016 10:29, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> >> >> On 2016/6/27 18:17, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 27/06/16 02:44, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>> On 2016/6/24 0:26, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> Construct GTDT table with the interrupt information of timers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>>> b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>>> index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644 >>>>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64; >>>>>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM" >>>>>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen " >>>>>> >>>>>> +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 >>>>>> +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW (u8) 0x01 >>>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> Why did not you include actypes.h rather than define these two >>>>> defines? >>>> If we include actypes.h, there will be some compiling errors. >>>> >>>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:55:2: error: #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>>> not defined >>>> #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH not defined >>>> ^ >>>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:130:9: error: unknown type name >>>> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64' >>>> typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64 UINT64; >>>> ^ >>>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:131:9: error: unknown type name >>>> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64' >>>> typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 INT64; >>>> ^ >>>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:202:2: error: #error unknown >>>> ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>>> #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>>> ^ >>>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:207:9: error: unknown type name >>>> 'acpi_native_uint' >>>> typedef acpi_native_uint acpi_size; >>>> ^ >>>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:617:3: error: unknown type name >>>> 'acpi_io_address' >>>> acpi_io_address pblk_address; >>>> >>>> Yeah, it maybe can be solved by defining ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH and >>>> COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 here, but since we only needs >>>> ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE and ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW, I think it's ok to define >>>> them >>>> here. >>> >>> We should avoid to redefine value as much as possible. The 2 missing >>> values are easy to define (see below) so there is no point to redefine >>> in a less obvious way: no comment to explain what the values are for, >>> and only a part of the set defined. >>> >>> #define ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH BITS_PER_LONG >>> #define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 int64_t >>> >> Actually not work. I add below codes but get compiling errors as well. >> So it needs the BITS_PER_LONG but it exists asm-arm/config.h > > Give a look to bitperlongs.h in /usr/include. Although the name is > __BITS_PER_LONG. Oh, Thanks. I'm wondering why other codes define own BITS_PER_LONG rather than use __BITS_PER_LONG directly.
Hi Stefano, On 05/07/16 17:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 27/06/16 02:44, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> On 2016/6/24 0:26, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> Construct GTDT table with the interrupt information of timers. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644 >>>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c >>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64; >>>>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM" >>>>> #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen " >>>>> >>>>> +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 >>>>> +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW (u8) 0x01 >>>>> + >>>> >>>> Why did not you include actypes.h rather than define these two defines? >>> If we include actypes.h, there will be some compiling errors. >>> >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:55:2: error: #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>> not defined >>> #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH not defined >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:130:9: error: unknown type name >>> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64' >>> typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64 UINT64; >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:131:9: error: unknown type name >>> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64' >>> typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 INT64; >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:202:2: error: #error unknown >>> ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>> #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:207:9: error: unknown type name >>> 'acpi_native_uint' >>> typedef acpi_native_uint acpi_size; >>> ^ >>> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:617:3: error: unknown type name >>> 'acpi_io_address' >>> acpi_io_address pblk_address; >>> >>> Yeah, it maybe can be solved by defining ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH and >>> COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 here, but since we only needs >>> ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE and ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW, I think it's ok to define them >>> here. >> >> We should avoid to redefine value as much as possible. The 2 missing values >> are easy to define (see below) so there is no point to redefine in a less >> obvious way: no comment to explain what the values are for, and only a part of >> the set defined. >> >> #define ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH BITS_PER_LONG >> #define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 int64_t >> >> Wei, Ian, Stefano, do you have any opinions? > > I think you are right that we should avoid redefining > ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE and ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW. But I think if possible we > should also avoid redefining ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH and > COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64. If possible, we should include the header file > with those definitions too (acpi/platform/acenv.h ?). acenv.h is including aclinux.h with contains a lot of hypervisor specific include. So we would need to rework the include to use it in the toolstack. Or maybe this can be found in /usr/include/?
diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644 --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64; #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM" #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen " +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE (u8) 0x00 +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW (u8) 0x01 + enum { RSDP, XSDT, @@ -110,6 +113,30 @@ static void make_acpi_xsdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom) dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[XSDT].size, 3); } +static void make_acpi_gtdt(libxl__gc *gc, struct xc_dom_image *dom) +{ + struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt; + size_t size = sizeof(*gtdt); + + gtdt = libxl__zalloc(gc, size); + + gtdt->non_secure_el1_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_PHYS_NS_PPI; + gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags = + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); + gtdt->virtual_timer_interrupt = GUEST_TIMER_VIRT_PPI; + gtdt->virtual_timer_flags = + (ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) + |(ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW << ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY); + + make_acpi_header(>dt->header, "GTDT", size, 2); + + acpitables[GTDT].table = gtdt; + acpitables[GTDT].size = size; + /* Align to 64bit. */ + dom->acpitable_size += ROUNDUP(acpitables[GTDT].size, 3); +} + int libxl__prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info, libxl__domain_build_state *state, struct xc_dom_image *dom) @@ -132,6 +159,7 @@ int libxl__prepare_acpi(libxl__gc *gc, libxl_domain_build_info *info, make_acpi_rsdp(gc, dom); make_acpi_xsdt(gc, dom); + make_acpi_gtdt(gc, dom); return 0; }