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 > > 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 >
