On 07/23/2013 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm thinking that it would probably be better to move all the
re-indented
code out into a qemuValidateDevicePCISlotsPIIX3() and just call that
function from qemuAssignDevicePCISlots(). That way if we need to add
more validation for other machine types in the future, we have a good
modular code structure. This would probably make the diff more sane
too, since you wouldn't be indenting code.
Ah yes, good idea! I'll do that and resend.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:44:52AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
(Note that, according to the qemuxml2argv-pseries-usb-multi test,
ppc
"pseries" machines also have a PIIX3 chip (since that test file adds a
"piix3-uhci" usb controller). I don't know if this is really the case
or not, but had to include that machine type in the checks in order
for make check to succeed with no changes to the test data.)
Anyone have better information about this? Does the pseries really have
a PIIX3? Or was that just an arbitrary entry added for a test case?