From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54840)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Qe0Gl-0007nL-VH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 03:42:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Qe0Gk-0006bm-RX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 03:42:07 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23852)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Qe0Gk-0006Zn-95
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 03:42:06 -0400
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p657g4od030186
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 03:42:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4E12C02C.2010603@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:41:32 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1309519646-3206-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>
	<m3fwmmf2o3.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3fwmmf2o3.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PCI: how handle multifunction / compound devices
 best?
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

   Hi,

> Device macros destroy the 1:1 relationship between -device and device
> tree nodes.  Or rather what's left of it: we already have a device that
> expands into multiple devices, namely usb-storage.  But it's an ad hoc
> hack, which has caused us some grief.

Exactly thats why I don't feel like adding more ad hoc hacks ...

cheers,
   Gerd