On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:45:53PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > This discussion comes down to two things I think: (a) our existing > firmware interface is pretty poor (b) we are duplicating work because of > firmware licensing. > > We can fix (a) and there's lots of value in doing that in terms of > improving support for other architectures. We've discussed (b) in other > threads and I've stated my opinion on the direction we need to take.
I'm not concerned about (b). I'm quite curious how you are planning to solve (a). I think it would help move this conversation forward if you could take a couple acpi tables in use today (eg, madt, srat) and describe the future format and location for each field in those tables. I think it would also be useful if you could do the same for a couple DSDT entries (eg, \_SB.PCI0, \_SB.PCI0.ISA) and also describe how you plan to have the guest build the AML from that info. -Kevin
