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.
> 
> > 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

But this has nothing to do with Linux.  There is also no guarantee that
the two committees will decide to use exactly the same format. Once one
of them sets the format in stone, we can add support for that format to
linux. If another one is playing nice and uses the same format, we can
use the same parsers. If it doesn't linux will have to follow suit.

-- 
MST

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to