Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V2 7/25] tools/libacpi: Add new fields in acpi_config for DMAR table

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:52:01PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> On 2017年08月23日 00:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> > +    drhd = (struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *)((void*)dmar + 
> >> > sizeof(*dmar));
> >> > +    drhd->type = ACPI_DMAR_TYPE_HARDWARE_UNIT;
> >> > +    drhd->length = sizeof(*drhd) + ioapic_scope_size;
> >> > +    drhd->flags = ACPI_DMAR_INCLUDE_PCI_ALL;
> >> > +    drhd->pci_segment = 0;
> >> > +    drhd->base_address = config->iommu_base_addr;
> >> > +
> >> > +    scope = &drhd->scope[0];
> >> > +    scope->type = ACPI_DMAR_DEVICE_SCOPE_IOAPIC;
> >> > +    scope->length = ioapic_scope_size;
> >> > +    scope->enumeration_id = config->ioapic_id;
> >> > +    scope->bus = I440_PSEUDO_BUS_PLATFORM;
> >> > +    scope->path[0] = I440_PSEUDO_DEVFN_IOAPIC;
> > I'm not sure whether this constants should instead be fields in the
> > acpi_config struct passed down from libxl. libxc shouldn't really need
> > to know anything about which chipset a VM is using.
> 
> How about rename I440_PSEUDO_XXX to VIOMMU_PSEUDO_XXX?

I'm not really complaining about the naming, I'm just saying that I'm
not sure whether this constants should live in libxl. It would be
better IMHO if they where defined in some libxl x86 specific header,
and passed to libxc inside of the acpi_config struct.

At the end it is libxl which decides which chipset the VM is going to
use, not libxc.

Roger.

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