Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC Design Doc] Add vNVDIMM support for Xen

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 03.02.16 at 08:00, <haozhong.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/02/16 17:11, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> Once upon a time somebody made the decision that ACPI tables
>> on Xen should be static and included in hvmloader. That might have been
>> a bad decision but at least it was coherent. Loading only *some* tables
>> from QEMU, but not others, it feels like an incomplete design to me.
>>
>> For example, QEMU is currently in charge of emulating the PCI bus, why
>> shouldn't it be QEMU that generates the PRT and MCFG?
>>
> 
> To Keir, Jan and Andrew:
> 
> Are there anything related to ACPI that must be done (or are better to
> be done) in hvmloader?

Some of the static tables (FADT and HPET come to mind) likely would
better continue to live in hvmloader. MCFG (for example) coming from
qemu, otoh, would be quite natural (and would finally allow MMCFG
support for guests in the first place). I.e. ...

>> I prefer switching to QEMU building all ACPI tables for devices that it
>> is emulating. However this alternative is good too because it is
>> coherent with the current design.
> 
> I would prefer to this one if the final conclusion is that only one
> agent should be allowed to build guest ACPI. As I said above, it looks
> like a big change to switch to QEMU for all ACPI tables and I'm afraid
> it would break some existing guests. 

... I indeed think that tables should come from qemu for components
living in qemu, and from hvmloader for components coming from Xen.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel