Hello Al, On 10/2/20 8:23 PM, Al Stone wrote: > On 24 Sep 2020 11:54, Auger Eric wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Adding Al in the loop >> >> On 9/24/20 11:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:21:29AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:00:35AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> OK so this looks good. Can you pls repost with the minor tweak >>>>> suggested and all acks included, and I will queue this? >>>> >>>> My NACK still stands, as long as a few questions are open: >>>> >>>> 1) The format used here will be the same as in the ACPI table? I >>>> think the answer to this questions must be Yes, so this leads >>>> to the real question: >>> >>> I am not sure it's a must. >>> We can always tweak the parser if there are slight differences >>> between ACPI and virtio formats. >>> >>> But we do want the virtio format used here to be approved by the virtio >>> TC, so it won't change. >>> >>> Eric, Jean-Philippe, does one of you intend to create a github issue >>> and request a ballot for the TC? It's been posted end of August with no >>> changes ... >> Jean-Philippe, would you? >>> >>>> 2) Has the ACPI table format stabalized already? If and only if >>>> the answer is Yes I will Ack these patches. We don't need to >>>> wait until the ACPI table format is published in a >>>> specification update, but at least some certainty that it >>>> will not change in incompatible ways anymore is needed. >>>> >> >> Al, do you have any news about the the VIOT definition submission to >> the UEFI ASWG? >> >> Thank you in advance >> >> Best Regards >> >> Eric > > A follow-up to my earlier post .... > > Hearing no objection, I've submitted the VIOT table description to > the ASWG for consideration under what they call the "code first" > process. The "first reading" -- a brief discussion on what the > table is and why we would like to add it -- was held yesterday. > No concerns have been raised as yet. Given the discussions that > have already occurred, I don't expect any, either. I have been > wrong at least once before, however. > > At this point, ASWG will revisit the request to add VIOT each > week. If there have been no comments in the prior week, and no > further discussion during the meeting, then a vote will be taken. > Otherwise, there will be discussion and we try again the next > week. > > The ASWG was also told that the likelihood of this definition of > the table changing is pretty low, and that it has been thought out > pretty well already. ASWG's consideration will therefore start > from the assumption that it would be best _not_ to make changes. > > So, I'll let you know what happens next week. Thank you very much for the updates and for your support backing the proposal in the best delays. Best Regards Eric > >> >>> >>> Not that I know, but I don't see why it's a must. >>> >>>> So what progress has been made with the ACPI table specification, is it >>>> just a matter of time to get it approved or are there concerns? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Joerg >>> >> >
