On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:03:12AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 7/3/20 11:51 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 7/3/20 11:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 03:49:06PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > > To cite ACPI specification:
> > >
> >
> > Functionally the XML looks find to me, but I was just thinking it looks
> > a bit wierd to have <bandwidth> under a <latencies> wrapper.
I'm not
> > entirely sure what better name we should use - perhaps
"interconnects" ?
> >
> > <interconnects>
> > <latency initiator='0' target='0'
type='access' value='5'/>
> > <latency initiator='0' target='0'
cache='1' type='access'
> > value='10'/>
> > <bandwidth initiator='0' target='0'
type='access'
> > value='204800' unit='KiB'/>
> > </interconnects>
> >
> > any other ideas ?
>
> That sounds better. Or we can admit this is HMAT an have <hmat/> instead
> <interconnects/>? But that won't be much future proof so your suggestion
> sound better.
Alright, no one suggested anything better and I'd like to push these to get
the most out of the development window possible. I'll change this to
<interconnects/> and push. We can still change it until the release, if
needed.
Sounds fine to me.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|