On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:45:53PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
This discussion comes down to two things I think: (a) our existing firmware interface is pretty poor (b) we are duplicating work because of firmware licensing.
We can fix (a) and there's lots of value in doing that in terms of improving support for other architectures. We've discussed (b) in other threads and I've stated my opinion on the direction we need to take.
I'm not concerned about (b).
I'm quite curious how you are planning to solve (a). I think it would help move this conversation forward if you could take a couple acpi tables in use today (eg, madt, srat) and describe the future format and location for each field in those tables. I think it would also be useful if you could do the same for a couple DSDT entries (eg, _SB.PCI0, _SB.PCI0.ISA) and also describe how you plan to have the guest build the AML from that info.
-Kevin