On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 11:02 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:50:02 +0200 Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
<model name='pci-bridge'/> <target chassisNr='1'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x01' function='0x0'> - <zpci uid='0x0002' fid='0x00000001'/> + <zpci uid='0x0001' fid='0x00000000'/>
Why this change? The pci-bridge does not show up in the guest anyway.
My assumption was that uid and fid for this would be autogenerated. Since uid 0x0001 and fid 0x00000000 have been freed up due to the change below this would be the autogenerated set.
If that makes the XML look saner, no objection.
I don't think it makes a lot of difference, but it doesn't make it any more confusing either, so I'm okay with changing it :)
Note that the PCI bridge is not visible in the guest; s390x always has a flat -topology. +topology. Also ``fid`` does not define slot or function of the PCI address.
I find the sentence regarding 'fid' confusing. Maybe instead move up the explanation from below regarding uid and fid?
"The PCI address in the guest is generated from..."
Lets join your proposal with Andreas and move his rewrite up to here. Like: ...topology. The PCI address in the guest is generated from the information provided via the ``zpci`` element: more specifically, ``uid`` is used as the PCI domain.``fid`` doesn't appear in the PCI address itself, but it will be used in sysfs (``/sys/bus/pci/slots/$fid/...``).
Sounds good.
(Also the rest of the changes.)
Cool. Boris, are you going to post a v2 squashing in all proposed changes? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization