Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Add virtio-iommu built-in topology

[Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

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
>