On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:03:12AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 7/3/20 11:51 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > On 7/3/20 11:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 03:49:06PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > > > To cite ACPI specification: > > > > > > > > > > > Functionally the XML looks find to me, but I was just thinking it looks > > > a bit wierd to have <bandwidth> under a <latencies> wrapper. I'm not > > > entirely sure what better name we should use - perhaps "interconnects" ? > > > > > > <interconnects> > > > <latency initiator='0' target='0' type='access' value='5'/> > > > <latency initiator='0' target='0' cache='1' type='access' > > > value='10'/> > > > <bandwidth initiator='0' target='0' type='access' > > > value='204800' unit='KiB'/> > > > </interconnects> > > > > > > any other ideas ? > > > > That sounds better. Or we can admit this is HMAT an have <hmat/> instead > > <interconnects/>? But that won't be much future proof so your suggestion > > sound better. > > Alright, no one suggested anything better and I'd like to push these to get > the most out of the development window possible. I'll change this to > <interconnects/> and push. We can still change it until the release, if > needed. Sounds fine to me. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
