On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 11:17:43AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:46:29 +0530
> Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:12:10PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > Hi Sunil,
> > >
> > > On 24/5/24 08:14, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > > Since virt is a common machine name across architectures like ARM64 and
> > > > RISC-V, move existing ARM64 ACPI tables under aarch64 folder so that
> > > > RISC-V tables can be added under riscv64 folder in future.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > tests/data/acpi/virt/{ => aarch64}/APIC | Bin
> > >
> > > The usual pattern is {target}/{machine}, so instead of:
> > >
> > > microvm/
> > > pc/
> > > q35/
> > > virt/aarch64/
> > > virt/riscv64/
> > >
> > > (which is odd because q35 is the x86 'virt'), I'd rather see:
> > >
> > > x86/microvm/
> > > x86/pc/
> > > x86/q35/
> > > aarch64/virt/
> > > riscv64/virt/
> > >
> > > Anyhow just my 2 cents, up to the ACPI maintainers :)
> > >
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > Your suggestion does make sense to me. Let me wait for feedback from
> > ARM/ACPI maintainers.
>
> I'd prefer {target}/{machine} hierarchy like Philippe suggests
Agreed.
> > Thanks,
> > Sunil
> >
