From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60123) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QccJl-00049A-RM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:55:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QccJk-0001bt-Dp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:55:29 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]:58095) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QccJj-0001bm-S1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:55:28 -0400 From: Paul Brook Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:55:24 +0100 References: <9F6FE96B71CF29479FF1CDC8046E1503165EEB@039-SN1MPN1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net> <201107011216.36181.paul@codesourcery.com> <9CFF2A09-213A-4127-992A-B153B789C5C0@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <9CFF2A09-213A-4127-992A-B153B789C5C0@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107011255.24733.paul@codesourcery.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] device assignment for embedded Power List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "dwg@au1.ibm.com" , "blauwirbel@gmail.com" , Yoder Stuart-B08248 , "alex.williamson@redhat.com" , "joerg.roedel@amd.com" , "armbru@redhat.com" > But the real challenge is how to expose the device to the guest device > tree. Especially when it comes to links between dt nodes, interrupt maps, > etc. We basically have 3 choices there: > > * take the host device tree pieces and modify them > * provide device tree chunks for each device (manually or through qdev > parameters) * use the device tree as machine config file and base > everything on it (solves the linking problem) > > The main question is which one would be the cleanest solution. And how > would it be implemented. I don't think any of this is specific to device passthrough. It occurs as soon as you have any user-configurable parts of the machine (or even just a nontrivial selection of machine variants). My guess is the only reason you haven't hit it before is because you're only emulated a single hard-coded SoC/board. Paul