On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 05:20:50AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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 for the confirmation!. Let me send the updated version soon.
Moving pc/q35/microvm also under new x86 would need many changes in bios-table-test.c. So, the question is, are you ok to combine x86 changes as well in this series or prefer to it later in separate series? Thanks, Sunil