Hi Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <[email protected]> > > I think I've addressed all comments from Julien regarding my series, > > If it is not too late for you would you be able to resend your series > without the 'address-cells'/'size-cells' change? This will give me the > opportunity to have an other review today.
I will be off after resending this so you can have another look today. > > > so I think I've got some bandwidth to do the clean-up patch tomorrow > > after the agreement, unless someone would like to do it himself? > > Renaming "xen,static-mem-..." is a bit tricky because they have been > defined in Xen 4.16. > > I couldn't find any support statement specific to the static memory > feature. So it would technically fall under the "dom0less" section which > is security supported. > > That said, I don't think we can consider that the static memory feature > is even supported because, until yesterday, the code wasn't properly > handling request to balloon in/out. So I would view this is a tech > preview (Could someone send a patch to clarify SUPPORT.MD)? In current code, the static allocation is in SUPPORT.md as tech preview. > > This would mean that would be that we could consider the binding > unstable and we could do a straight renaming. That said, I can > understand this may be undesirable. > > If that's the case then we would need to keep the current binding as-is. > So we would have two options: > 1) Provide a new compatible so #address-cells #size-cells can be > used. The current binding can be deprecated > 2) Leave as-is and accept the difference > > I don't have a strong opinion on which way to go. Whichever, it would be > good to write down the rationale in the commit message of the "future" > patch. > > I would not block this series on the renaming for existing property > (what matter is the new ones are consistent with the discussion). The > renaming could be done afterwards. I would even say post the feature > freeze on Friday because this could be considered as a bug fix (assuming > you agree as the release manager :)). Actually this is the one I want to discuss with you, I am good with considering this clean-up patch as a bug fix. Kind regards, Henry > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
