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

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.