On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:41:13AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
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'/>
Ok. It looks like it does not require an IRQ line though IIUC. For the general ISA address type though, we want to represent both ioport and IRQ values. So I guess we need the IRQ attribute to be optional in some manner. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|