From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44811 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PRTmA-0008LR-B3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:02:31 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1PRTm9-0006yG-2N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:02:30 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31448)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1PRTm8-0006y2-Py
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:02:29 -0500
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:02:23 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20101211180223.GA7994@redhat.com>
References: <1291808109-22563-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTi=-uEELKjvUz5Uu2w3=dqUj+DXXpTmhsN5zB2-Z@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101211160617.GA9026@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTimdaoU45HAcvyoSfN3HdvsC3wjCYWKAGpKD4PMr@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimdaoU45HAcvyoSfN3HdvsC3wjCYWKAGpKD4PMr@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv8 00/16] boot order specification
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: kevin@koconnor.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, The OpenBIOS Mailinglist <openbios@openbios.org>

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 05:19:01PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =
=9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A =9A What should we do with
> >> ata-2@600 vs drive@1?
> > There is no available IDE OF binding spec, so I when with the way
> > OpenBIOS reports ata on qemu-x86. I have no idea what 600 in ata-2@600
> > may mean, but looking at g3_beige_300.html there is no such node there
> > and looking at any other device tree in http://penguinppc.org/historica=
l/dev-trees-html/
> > I haven't found one that use this kind of addressing for pci-ata.
> > http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/g3bw_400.html for
> > instance has pci@80000000/pci-bridge@d/pci-ata@1/ata-4. ata-2@600 kind =
of
> > addressing is used by devices on mac-io bus which I do not think we
> > emulate in qemu. So it looks like OpneBIOS is wrong here.
>=20
> We have PMAC IDE, but this device is CMD646, so mac-io bus addressing
> rules should not be used.
>=20
So you agree that OpenBIOS is wrong here?

> In this tree there are two disks connected to CMD646, named
> /pci@80000000/pci-bridge@d/pci-ata@1/ata-4/disk and
> /pci@80000000/pci-bridge@d/pci-ata@1/ata-4/disk@1:
> http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/g4_pci_350.html
You are saying that qemu creates paths like:
/grackle@fec00000/ide@3/drive@1/disk@0
/grackle@fec00000/ide@3/drive@1/disk@1

I do not understand why qemu creates node drive@1. It should be drive@0
according to the code. I'll look at why unit-address is incorrect for
the node. But assuming that this problem is fixed then paths created by
qemu is very similar to the paths in g4_pci_350.html. It looks like in=20
g4_pci_350.html they omit unit address if it is zero.

--
			Gleb.