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
> Thanks,
> Sunil
>
