On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:02:55PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:38:13AM -0400, 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. > > It is, having only one parser for the ACPI and MMIO descriptions was one > of the selling points for MMIO in past discussions and I think it makes > sense to keep them in sync. It's not possible to use exactly the same code for parsing. The access methods are different (need to deal with port-IO for built-in description on PCI, for example) and more importantly, the structure is different as well. The ACPI table needs nodes for virtio-iommu while the built-in description is contained in the virtio-iommu itself. So the endpoint nodes point to virtio-iommu node on ACPI, while they don't need a pointer on the built-in desc. I kept as much as possible common in structures and implementation, but in the end we still need about 200 unique lines on each side. Thanks, Jean > > > We can always tweak the parser if there are slight differences > > between ACPI and virtio formats. > > There is no guarantee that there only need to be "tweaks" until the > ACPI table format is stablized. > > Regards, > > Joerg >
