From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: scottwood@freescale.com (Scott Wood) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:11:18 -0600 Subject: [kvmarm] [PATCH v5.1 0/2] KVM: ARM: Rename KVM_SET_DEVICE_ADDRESS In-Reply-To: (from agraf@suse.de on Fri Jan 11 09:42:55 2013) Message-ID: <1357935078.5475.10@snotra> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/11/2013 09:42:55 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 02:10, Scott Wood wrote: > > > struct kvm_device_attr { > > __u32 device; > > This needs some semantic specification. Is device a constant value? > Is it the return value of CREATE_IRQCHIP? As proposed, it's up to the architecture to provide that specification. In theory this could be used for things other than IRQ chips. We could still say that device creation functions return a valid device ID (if the device has any attributes), as well as have other architecture-specific ways of describing device IDs (static enumeration). Or we could have non-architecture-specific static enumeration. Or just require that all devices be explicitly created by something that returns the ID. Do you have a preferred approach? -Scott