From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907F2C4346E for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A7A5212CC for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0A7A5212CC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=8bytes.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0F885AA2; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WLydG8hUwm6h; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC7A8162C; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CEEC0859; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B6BC0051; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268FF20467; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhpL0hEc93by; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from theia.8bytes.org (8bytes.org [81.169.241.247]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 484312045D; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by theia.8bytes.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DB01A295; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:21:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Add virtio-iommu built-in topology Message-ID: <20200924092129.GH27174@8bytes.org> References: <20200821131540.2801801-1-jean-philippe@linaro.org> <20200924045958-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200924045958-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, Jean-Philippe Brucker , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Auger Eric , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, sebastien.boeuf@intel.com, bhelgaas@google.com X-BeenThere: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux virtualization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Virtualization" On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:00:35AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > OK so this looks good. Can you pls repost with the minor tweak > suggested and all acks included, and I will queue this? My NACK still stands, as long as a few questions are open: 1) The format used here will be the same as in the ACPI table? I think the answer to this questions must be Yes, so this leads to the real question: 2) Has the ACPI table format stabalized already? If and only if the answer is Yes I will Ack these patches. We don't need to wait until the ACPI table format is published in a specification update, but at least some certainty that it will not change in incompatible ways anymore is needed. So what progress has been made with the ACPI table specification, is it just a matter of time to get it approved or are there concerns? Regards, Joerg _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization