Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] tests/data/acpi/virt: Move ACPI tables under aarch64

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

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 11:17:43AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:46:29 +0530
> Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:12:10PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > Hi Sunil,
> > > 
> > > On 24/5/24 08:14, Sunil V L wrote:  
> > > > Since virt is a common machine name across architectures like ARM64 and
> > > > RISC-V, move existing ARM64 ACPI tables under aarch64 folder so that
> > > > RISC-V tables can be added under riscv64 folder in future.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   tests/data/acpi/virt/{ => aarch64}/APIC             | Bin  
> > > 
> > > The usual pattern is {target}/{machine}, so instead of:
> > > 
> > >   microvm/
> > >   pc/
> > >   q35/
> > >   virt/aarch64/
> > >   virt/riscv64/
> > > 
> > > (which is odd because q35 is the x86 'virt'), I'd rather see:
> > > 
> > >   x86/microvm/
> > >   x86/pc/
> > >   x86/q35/
> > >   aarch64/virt/
> > >   riscv64/virt/
> > > 
> > > Anyhow just my 2 cents, up to the ACPI maintainers :)
> > >   
> > Hi Phil,
> > 
> > Your suggestion does make sense to me. Let me wait for feedback from
> > ARM/ACPI maintainers.
> 
> I'd prefer  {target}/{machine} hierarchy like Philippe suggests

Agreed.

> > Thanks,
> > Sunil
> >