On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:53:17PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:46:53AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/04/2013 08:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> Dan, do you have any thoughts on the best representation to use? Or is
> >> Hu's original proposal of:
> >>
> >> <pvpanic ioport='0x505'/>
> >
> > I'm not a fan of doing a special case attribute for 'ioport' - this
is
> > something something that should be part of an <address> element, since
> > ioport numbers are a generic addressing concept for many devices.
> > eg ISA serial / parallel ports have IRQ / IO ports IIUC.
>
> So something more like:
>
> <pvpanic>
> <address type='ioport' slot='0x505'/>
> </pvpanic>
>
> and introducing a new type='ioport' namespace into the <address> XML
> since it is yet another numbering system for guest-visible addressing?
Yes, I'm not sure I'd call the type 'ioport' - the address type reflects
the bus/controller type that the device is associated with. What is the
"bus" type that a pvpanic device is attached to ? Is it a ISA bus device,
or is it a "platform" device or something else ? eg it might be appropriate
to use
<address type='platform' ioport='0x666'/>
It's an ISA device. So the address should be:
<address type='isa' ioport='0x505'/>
?