Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] hw/acpi: Implement the SRAT GI affinity structure

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:14:00AM +0000, Ankit Agrawal wrote:
> > It also looks like this support just silently fails if the device
> > string isn't the right type or isn't found.  That's not good.  Should
> > the previous patch validate the device where the Error return is more
> > readily available rather than only doing a strdup there?  Maybe then we
> > should store the object there rather than a char buffer.
> 
> AFAIU in a normal flow currently, a qemu -object is (parsed and) created much
> earlier that a -device. This complicates the situation as when the
> acpi-generic-initiator object is being created, the device is not available for
> error check. Maybe I should treat this object specially to create much later?
> 
> > Don't we also still need to enforce that the device is not hotpluggable
> > since we're tying it to this fixed ACPI object?  That was implicit when
> > previously testing for the non-hotpluggable vfio-pci device type, but
> > should rely on something like device_get_hotpluggable() now.
> 
> I think this will be similarly problematic as above due to the sequence of
> object creation.
> 
> > Also the ACPI Generic Initiator supports either a PCI or ACPI device
> > handle, where we're only adding PCI support here.  What do we want ACPI
> > device support to look like?  Is it sufficient that device= only
> > accepts a PCI device now and fails on anything else and would later be
> > updated to accept an ACPI device or should the object have different
> > entry points, ex. pci_dev = vs acpi_dev= where it might later be
> > introspected whether ACPI device support exists?
> 
> I am fine with either way. If we prefer different entry points, I can make the
> change.


Not the expert on QOM. Hope one of QOM maintainers can answer.