Re: [PATCH 03/11] content: Update list of virtio cfg structures

[Alex BennÃe <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Nikos Dragazis <ndragazis@arrikto.com> writes:

> On 17/9/20 7:34 Î.Î., Alex BennÃe wrote:
>
>> Nikos Dragazis <ndragazis@arrikto.com> writes:
>>
>>> Shared memory and vendor-specific configuration structures have been
>>> introduced in previous commits.
>>>
>>> Update the list of virtio configuration structures so that it includes
>>> the shared memory and vendor-specific configuration structures.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nikos Dragazis <ndragazis@arrikto.com>
>>> ---
>>>   content.tex | 2 ++
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
>>> index 3ce768c..b5b2f79 100644
>>> --- a/content.tex
>>> +++ b/content.tex
>>> @@ -634,6 +634,8 @@ \subsection{Virtio Structure PCI Capabilities}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Option
>>>   \item ISR Status
>>>   \item Device-specific configuration (optional)
>>>   \item PCI configuration access
>>> +\item Shared memory regions (optional)
>>> +\item Vendor-specific data (optional)
>> Are we talking about "Vendor data capability" here?
>
> Yep.
>
>> Maybe we should call it that?
>
> I would avoid using the word "capability" here because the items in this
> list are referred to as "structures". ACK for s/Vendor-specific/Vendor.
> In general, I see that the wording in this section is not consistent in
> the sense that the terms "configuration structure" and "capability" are
> used interchangeably.

I have a mild preference for configuration structure - but a greater
preference for consistency.

>
>>
>>>   \end{itemize}
>>>   
>>>   Each structure can be mapped by a Base Address register (BAR) belonging to
>>


-- 
Alex BennÃe