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. Peter