Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] xen/arm: Enable the existing x86 virtual PCI support for ARM.

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bertrand Marquis writes ("Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] xen/arm: Enable the existing x86 
virtual PCI support for ARM."):
> > On 15 Oct 2021, at 09:00, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The latter is fine to be put here (i.e. FTAOD I'm fine with it
> > staying here). For the former I even question its original placement
> > in asm-x86/pci.h: It's not generally correct as per the PCI spec, as
> > the bus portion of the address can be anywhere from 1 to 8 bits. And
> > in fact there is a reason why this macro was/is used in only a
> > single place, but not e.g. in x86'es handling of physical MCFG. It
> > is merely an implementation choice in vPCI that the entire segment 0
> > has a linear address range covering all 256 buses. Hence I think
> > this wants to move to xen/vpci.h and then perhaps also be named
> > VPCI_ECAM_BDF().
> 
> On previous version it was request to renamed this to ECAM and agreed
> to put is here. Now you want me to rename it to VPCI and move it again.
> I would like to have a confirmation that this is ok and the final move if 
> possible.
> 
> @Roger can you confirm this is what is wanted ?

I think Roger is not available today I'm afraid.

Bertrand, can you give me a link to the comment from Roger ?
Assuming that it says what I think it will say:

I think the best thing to do will be to leave the name as it was in
the most recent version of your series.  I don't think it makes sense
to block this patch over a naming disagreement.  And it would be best
to minimise unnecessary churn.

I would be happy to release-ack a name change (perhaps proposed bo Jan
or Roger) supposing that that is the ultimate maintainer consensus.

Jan, would that approach be OK with you ?

Ian.