From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 06/11] nvdimm acpi: initialize the
 resource used by NVDIMM ACPI
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:26:47 +0200
Message-ID: <20160217192356-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
References: <20160215111705-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
 <56C1A4D2.3060402@linux.intel.com>
 <20160215114742.382c951e@nial.brq.redhat.com>
 <20160215133722-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
 <20160215143234.29320a5f@nial.brq.redhat.com>
 <56C1F469.2040602@linux.intel.com>
 <20160215182404.0878474f@nial.brq.redhat.com>
 <56C21A7D.5040902@linux.intel.com>
 <20160216120047.5a50eccf@nial.brq.redhat.com>
 <56C3D522.6090401@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>, ehabkost@redhat.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, rth@twiddle.net
To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56561 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1030412AbcBQR0w (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:26:52 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56C3D522.6090401@linux.intel.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:04:18AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>>As for the rest could that commands go via MMIO that we usually
> >>>use for control path?
> >>
> >>So both input data and output data go through single MMIO, we need =
to
> >>introduce a protocol to pass these data, that is complex?
> >>
> >>And is any MMIO we can reuse (more complexer=EF=BC=9F) or we should=
 allocate this
> >>MMIO page =EF=BC=88the old question - where to allocated?=EF=BC=89?
> >Maybe you could reuse/extend memhotplug IO interface,
> >or alternatively as Michael suggested add a vendor specific PCI_Conf=
ig,
> >I'd suggest PM device for that (hw/acpi/[piix4.c|ihc9.c])
> >which I like even better since you won't need to care about which po=
rts
> >to allocate at all.
>=20
> Well, if Michael does not object, i will do it in the next version. :=
)

Sorry, the thread's so long by now that I'm no longer sure what does "i=
t" refer to.

--=20
MST