[libvirt] [PATCH 04/11] conf: Add device address type for dimm devices

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 14:22:11 +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 07:36:53PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > >On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 06:25:40PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > >>On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:19:53 +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > >>>On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:38:29PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > >>>>ACPI Dimm devices are described by the slot and base address. Add a new
> > >>>>address type to be able to describe such address.
> > >>>>---
> > >>>> docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 18 +++++++++++
> > >>>> src/conf/domain_conf.c        | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >>>> src/conf/domain_conf.h        |  9 ++++++
> > >>>> 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
> > >>>>index acfa16a..1824741 100644
> > >>>>--- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
> > >>>>+++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
> 
> ...
> 
> > >>>>@@ -4407,6 +4419,12 @@
> > >>>>           </attribute>
> > >>>>           <ref name="isaaddress"/>
> > >>>>         </group>
> > >>>>+        <group>
> > >>>>+          <attribute name="type">
> > >>>>+            <value>acpi-dimm</value>
> > >>>>+          </attribute>
> > >>>>+          <ref name="acpidimmaddress"/>
> > >>>>+        </group>
> > >>>>       </choice>
> > >>>>     </element>
> > >>>>   </define>
> > >>>
> > >>>I've got 2 questions here:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Why not just "dimm"?  I feel like the "acpi" complicates
> > >>>    everything.
> > >>
> > >>That is okay if upstream agrees.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Just a swift idea, not that it's needed.  I'd wonder about others'
> > >opinions.
> > >
> > 
> > Well, from the vast majority of replies, I think there is not that
> > much of disagreement.  Although if there was a thread where this was
> > decided and I missed that, feel free to leave it as-is.
> 
> Actually it was never discussed anywhere besides here so it's still open
> for discussion.

I think just 'dimm' is probably more appropriate than 'acpidimm'. IIUC,
ACPI doesn't influence addressing - it is just a BIOS hardware discovery
mechanism. So including acpi in the name is redundant, and probably even
wrong if we consider architectures which don't use ACPI (everything that
isn't x86 or aarch64)


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|