On 06/22/2015 04:21 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 16:10:47 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 06/11/2015 02:40 AM, Pavel Fedin wrote:
This capability specifies that "virt" machine on ARM has PCI controller. Enabled when version is at least 2.3.0.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com> --- src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 5 +++++ src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c index ca7a7c2..2eccc97 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c @@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virQEMUCaps, QEMU_CAPS_LAST, "dea-key-wrap", "pci-serial", "aarch64-off", + "arm-virt-pci", );
@@ -1330,6 +1331,10 @@ virQEMUCapsComputeCmdFlags(const char *help, virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_VNC_SHARE_POLICY); }
+ if (version >= 2003000) { + virQEMUCapsSet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_ARM_VIRT_PCI); + } + return 0; }
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h index b5a7770..3c1a8b9 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ typedef enum { QEMU_CAPS_DEA_KEY_WRAP = 187, /* -machine dea_key_wrap */ QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_PCI_SERIAL = 188, /* -device pci-serial */ QEMU_CAPS_CPU_AARCH64_OFF = 189, /* -cpu ...,aarch64=off */ + QEMU_CAPS_ARM_VIRT_PCI = 190, /* ARM 'virt' machine has PCI bus */
QEMU_CAPS_LAST, /* this must always be the last item */ } virQEMUCapsFlags;
ACK and pushed, tweaked to avoid the conflict with .git (since additions to qemu_capabilities are always conflicting, it's better to get this in early)
It breaks syntax-check since the 'if' has a single line body with braces around it.
Also pushing a capabiltity without the code that will actually use it is not exactly a good idea since it might never be used if the next patch gets abandoned and since they are considered public we might be stuck with it forever.
hmm sorry, I suck with syntax-check... but WRT to this specific capability, I don't know how we won't end up using it, so in this case I think it's pretty safe. But I won't push a check again without it's accompanying usage. - Cole