qemu-arm
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] qom: new object to associate device to numa node


From: Ankit Agrawal
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] qom: new object to associate device to numa node
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:00:27 +0000

>> >>> Jonathan, you pointed out interface design issues in your review of v2.>
>> >> Are you fully satisfied with the interface in v3?
>> >>
>> >> Yes. I'm fine with the interface in this version (though it's v7, so I'm 
>> >> lost
>> >> on v2 vs v3!)
>> >
>> > Looks like I can't count to 7!
>> >
>> > With NUMA capitalized in the doc comment, QAPI schema
>> > Acked-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> Thanks! Will fix that in the next version.
>
> The following is really me arguing with myself, so can probably be
> ignored, but maybe it will spark an idea from someone else!
>
> One trivial tweak that might make our life easier if anyone adds
> support in the future for the other device handle type might be to go
> with simply dev rather than pci-dev.
>
> There is a sticky corner though if a device is a PCI device
> and in ACPI DSDT so maybe we are better off adding acpi-dev
> to take either pci-dev or acpi-dev?

That use case does complicate the situation. Do you of any such
use case for generic initiator?

As for your suggestion of using acpi-dev as the arg to take both
pci-dev and acpi-dev.. Would that mean sending a pure pci device
(not the corner case you mentioned) through the acpi-dev argument
as well? Not sure if that would appropriate.

> Annoyingly for generic ports, (I'm reusing this infrastructure here)
> the kernel code currently only deals with the ACPI form (for CXL host
> bridges).  Given I point that at the bus of a PXB_CXL it is both
> a PCI device, and the only handle we have for getting to the
> Root Bridge ACPI handle.

So IIUC, you need to pass a PCI device to the generic port object, but use
that to reach the ACPI handle and build the Generic port affinity structure
for an ACPI device?

> So I think I've argued myself around to thinking we need to extend
> the interface with another optional parameter if we ever do support
> the ACPI handle for generic initiators :(
>
> Jonathan


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]