On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:37:25PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:15:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Ross Zwisler > > <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:25:27PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > >> > Add a machine command line option to allow the user to control the > > >> > Platform > > >> > Capabilities Structure in the virtualized NFIT. This Platform > > >> > Capabilities > > >> > Structure was added in ACPI 6.2 Errata A. > > >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com> > > >> > > >> I tried playing with it and encoding the capabilities is > > >> quite awkward. > > >> > > >> Can we add bits for specific capabilities instead of nvdimm-cap? > > >> > > >> How about: > > >> > > >> "cpu-flush-on-power-loss-cap" > > >> "memory-flush-on-power-loss-cap" > > >> "byte-addressable-mirroring-cap" > > > > > > Hmmm...I don't like that as much because: > > > > > > a) It's very verbose. Looking at my current qemu command line few other > > > options require that many characters, and you'd commonly be defining > > > more > > > than one of these for a given VM. > > > > > > b) It means that the QEMU will need to be updated if/when new flags are > > > added, > > > because we'll have to have new options for each flag. The current > > > implementation is more future-proof because you can specify any flags > > > value you want. > > > > > > However, if you feel strongly about this, I'll make the change. > > > > Straw-man: Could we do something similar with what we are doing in ndctl? > > > > enum ndctl_persistence_domain { > > PERSISTENCE_NONE = 0, > > PERSISTENCE_MEM_CTRL = 10, > > PERSISTENCE_CPU_CACHE = 20, > > PERSISTENCE_UNKNOWN = INT_MAX, > > }; > > > > ...and have the command line take a number where "10" and "20" are > > supported today, but allows us to adapt to new persistence domains in > > the future. > > I'm fine with that except can we have symbolic names instead of numbers > on command line? > > -- > MST
Okay, we can move to the symbolic names. Do you want them to be that long, or would: nvdimm-cap-cpu nvdimm-cap-mem-ctrl nvdimm-cap-mirroring or something be better? _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm