From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760850AbXKILES (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:04:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751874AbXKILEL (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:04:11 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:50774 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778AbXKILEK (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:04:10 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 3/3] virtio PCI device Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:03:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: Anthony Liguori , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <11944899922822-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <200711081846.36821.arnd@arndb.de> <47335DC6.7090603@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <47335DC6.7090603@us.ibm.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711091203.54665.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/MApn+/1GpXSAQ6wiNEHGtEar0qnnWhevvyCF z/4rrsI/etezArjtoDPwLfAdEuk9ZbN/doHdEgS4nJPXwB3omw a2xe69fJhU2M0mYGvObsg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 08 November 2007, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > They already show up underneath of the PCI bus. The issue is that there > are two separate 'struct device's for each virtio device. There's the > PCI device (that's part of the pci_dev structure) and then there's the > virtio_device one. I thought that setting the dev.parent of the > virtio_device struct device would result in having two separate entries > under the PCI bus directory which would be pretty confusing But that's what a device tree means. Think about a USB disk drive: The drive shows up as a child of the USB controller, which in turn is a child of the PCI bridge. Note that I did not suggest having the virtio parent set to the parent of the PCI device, but to the PCI device itself. I find it more confusing to have a device just hanging off the root when it is actually handled by the PCI subsystem. Arnd <><