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

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

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
>>>
>>
>