>>> On 21.05.15 at 12:52, <julien.gr...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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.
Now that reads as if the table contents and layout are _not_ stable yet. >>>> Which seems superseded by 6.0's hypervisor vendor identification 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... Sure, but once you know you run on Xen you could retrieve it via hypercall if there's no other means. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
