On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 16:50:30 +0000 Ankit Agrawal <ank...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>> 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 <arm...@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? 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 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
