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

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.