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(a)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