On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:31:19PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 08:29 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:27:49PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 08:17 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:56:05AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > Do you want to just help complete virtio-rtc then? Would be easier than > > > > > > trying to keep two specs in sync. > > > > > > > > > > The ACPI version is much more lightweight and doesn't take up a > > > > > valuable PCI slot#. (I know, you can do virtio without PCI but that's > > > > > complex in other ways). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, should we support virtio over ACPI? Just asking. > > > > > > Given that we support virtio DT bindings, and the ACPI "PRP0001" device > > > exists with a DSM method which literally returns DT properties, > > > including such properties as "compatible=virtio,mmio" ... do we > > > already? > > > > > > > > > > In a sense, but you are saying that is too complex? > > Can you elaborate? > > No, I think it's fine. I encourage the use of the PRP0001 device to > expose DT devices through ACPI. I was just reminding you of its > existence. > > Confused. You said "I know, you can do virtio without PCI but that's complex in other ways" as the explanation why you are doing a custom protocol. -- MST
