From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36859)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1YVylZ-0004dT-3I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:46:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1YVylV-0008RV-OS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:46:53 -0400
Received: from e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.107]:42892)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1YVylV-0008RN-E6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:46:49 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use
	Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> from <blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:46:47 -0000
Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
	(d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197])
	by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA421B0804B
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:47:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
	[9.149.37.216])
	by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with
	ESMTP id t2C8kknv53477498
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:46:46 GMT
Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with
	ESMTP id t2C8kiQn026990
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:46:45 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:46:44 +0100
From: Frank Blaschka <blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20150312084644.GA29840@tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
References: <1425992614-8938-1-git-send-email-blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1425992614-8938-3-git-send-email-blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20150310152144-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<20150311143844.GA9483@tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
	<20150311154551-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150311154551-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2 RFC] s390x/pci: rework
	pci	infrastructure modeling
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: MIHAJLOV@de.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:38:44PM +0100, Frank Blaschka wrote:
> > I like Alex's idea because:
> > 1) It reflects pretty well the actual nature of the pci system in real s390 hw
> 
> why do you say this? does real hw has this
> one device per bridge limit?
> 
Actually we don't know. HW does not expose this information. All we know is each
pci function is completely separated. So it is a good assumption to have a separate
bridge/bus for each pci function. By the way the Linux kernel for s390 makes the
same assumption by creating a new pci domain for each function. You may want
to read the cover letter again to get more technical details on this.