From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/17] add minimal virtio support for devtree
 virtio-mmio
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:36:16 +0200
Message-ID: <20140711093616.GC6013@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1405066787-5793-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
 <1405066787-5793-8-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com>
 <53BFA133.7080608@redhat.com>
 <20140711090828.GB6013@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
 <53BFAE1E.3020306@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	christoffer.dall@linaro.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63328 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752897AbaGKJgY (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:36:24 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53BFAE1E.3020306@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:27:58AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 11/07/2014 11:08, Andrew Jones ha scritto:
> >>> lib/arm/virtio.c
> >>>
> >>> where virtio_bind is in lib/arm/virtio.c.
> >>>
> >Well, virtio_bind will still need to be in lib/virtio.c, but just as
> >a wrapper to arch_virtio_bind.
> 
> Ok, that's just a naming thing.
> 
> >And, I'm inclined to keep virtio_bind_busses
> >in arm's arch_virtio_bind.
> 
> Why?  To support virtio-pci in the future?  It seems like a good thing to
> have (future support for virtio-pci) but even then you'd have only two tests
> and that's already the exception.  The common case would be just one.  You
> could write that as
> 
>     struct virtio_device *arch_virtio_bind(u32 devid)
>     {
>         struct virtio_device *vdev;
> 
> 	vdev = arch_virtio_mmio_bind(devid);
> 	if (!vdev)
> 	    vdev = arch_virtio_pci_bind(devid);
> 	return vdev;
>     }
> 
> (I don't see kvm-unit-tests using ACPI in the future.  Having DT+ACPI x
> mmio+pci would be a good reason to have the array, but even then it's

Yes, that was the reason.

> premature and these are unit tests not an OS...).

But, true and true. I guess I'll drop the table for now.

drew