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

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

Small mistake in my message.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:04:06AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> 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
                                                 ^ libxc
> 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

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