On Thu Apr 24, 2025 at 11:19 PM BST, dmkhn wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 05:10:10PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> v4: >> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20250417124844.11143-1-agarc...@amd.com/ >> v3: >> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20250408160802.49870-1-agarc...@amd.com/ >> v2: >> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20241226165740.29812-1-dpsm...@apertussolutions.com/ >> v1: >> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20241123182044.30687-1-dpsm...@apertussolutions.com/ >> >> ========= Original cover letter: >> >> The Hyperlaunch device tree for dom0 series is the second split out for the >> introduction of the Hyperlaunch domain builder logic. These changes focus on >> introducing the ability to express a domain configuration that is then used >> to >> populate the struct boot_domain structure for dom0. This ability to express a >> domain configuration provides the next step towards a general domain builder. >> >> The splitting of Hyperlaunch into a set of series are twofold, to reduce the >> effort in reviewing a much larger series, and to reduce the effort in >> handling >> the knock-on effects to the construction logic from requested review changes. >> >> >> >> Alejandro Vallejo (1): >> x86/hyperlaunch: Add helpers to locate multiboot modules >> >> Daniel P. Smith (11): >> kconfig: introduce domain builder config options >> common/hyperlaunch: introduce the domain builder >> x86/hyperlaunch: initial support for hyperlaunch device tree >> x86/hyperlaunch: locate dom0 kernel with hyperlaunch >> x86/hyperlaunch: obtain cmdline from device tree >> x86/hyperlaunch: locate dom0 initrd with hyperlaunch >> x86/hyperlaunch: add domain id parsing to domain config >> x86/hyperlaunch: specify dom0 mode with device tree >> x86/hyperlaunch: add memory parsing to domain config >> x86/hyperlaunch: add max vcpu parsing of hyperlaunch device tree >> x86/hyperlaunch: add capabilities to boot domain > > One general comment w.r.t. naming notation in: > > xen/common/domain-builder/fdt.c > xen/common/domain-builder/fdt.h > > Sorry, overlooked that earlier. > > What do you think about using fdt_<something> notation for all functions in > fdt.{c,h}? > > For example: > > s/detect_fdt_kind/fdt_detect_hyperlauch_node/ ^ kind? > > s/find_hyperlaunch_node/fdt_find_hyperlauch_node/ > > s/walk_hyperlaunch_fdt/fdt_walk_hyperlauch_node/ > > s/process_domain_node/fdt_process_hyperlauch_node/ ^ domain?
Assuming the two nits above are mistakes on copy-paste, it sounds reasonable. I'll wait for some acks on the rest and resend with those adjustments if needed. > > Other than that: > > Reviewed-by: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com> > > for the series. Thanks a lot! Cheers, Alejandro
