On 10.02.2012, at 00:17, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 09.02.2012 23:37, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> On 02/09/2012 04:23 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Ping re the VMState and variable sized arrays issue. I don't >>> see any consensus in this discussion for a different approach, >>> so should we just commit Mitsyanko's patchset? >> >> I don't know if I mentioned this, but do we really need variable sizes? > > You didn't in this context. :) > > I didn't write the original code so don't know what use cases beyond > ICH9 it had in mind. Alex?
I'm having a hard time to grasp the question. AHCI is basically the spec to specific implementations. ICH9 implements AHCI, just like Nehalem implements x86. There are other chips out there that also implement AHCI. As long as we don't need any other, I don't think it'd make sense to add more AHCI consumers, but I certainly don't want to block the road in case someone needs it. There are AHCI implementations for ARM for example. Didn't the Calxeda guys hack on something there? Alex
