>> >>> 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?
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
