On 21/05/15 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 21.05.15 at 12:34, <julien.gr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 21/05/15 07:22, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> The linked to document (on our wiki) is versioned 0.<something>, >>> which doesn't look like a final stable version. The same applies to >>> the other (STAO?) one. >> >> That's a mistake in the version number. Those tables has been reviewed >> by Citrix and Linaro people and we agreed about the final tables. > > And Citriy+Linaro are the standardizing body here? With no-one > else involved?
The content of this table is handled by Xen Project and can be modified at our convenience during the review process. >From the ACPI perspective, only the signature has been reserved in order to avoid someone else using it. >>>> For the device tree, we >>>> include a new node. For ACPI, this table allow us to know the we are >>>> running on Xen. >>> >>> Which seems superseded by 6.0's hypervisor vendor identification >>> in FADT. And the OEM IDs in various table headers could have >>> served such identification purposes too, as could have "OEMx" >>> tables. >> >> ACPI 6.0 has been released few months after Parth and Naresh began to >> implement ACPI for Xen. We could take advantage of this new field. > > If at all possible - yes please, in favor of any custom tables. It would still be necessary to expose the event channel, grant table region... Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
