From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55509)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1R5Xgh-0004wQ-Jv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:50:44 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1R5Xgg-000672-Mn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:50:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4E76E63E.9030106@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:50:38 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1315989802-18753-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de>
	<1315989802-18753-2-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de>
	<20110915031437.GR9025@yookeroo.fritz.box>
	<4E71A2D2.2080008@redhat.com>
	<20110916030616.GZ9025@yookeroo.fritz.box>
	<4E7327E4.7040708@redhat.com>
	<20110916140838.GH9025@yookeroo.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <20110916140838.GH9025@yookeroo.fritz.box>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 01/58] spapr: proper
	qdevification
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: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org

On 09/16/2011 04:08 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > > Well, now I'm confused.  I had a look at a pHyp machine, and Linux
> > > seemed to see it as multiple targets on a single channel, but I'm sure
> > > the PAPR spec says you shouldn't have that.  So I'm going to have to
> > > look closer now.
> >
> >  If this is the case, there might be a bug in SLOF's probing of SCSI
> >  devices.
>
> Um.. I'm confused.  This is a pHyp (aka PowerVM) machine, so there is
> no SLOF.  What I'm seeing there seems to contradict the PAPR spec
> which is supposed to describe it.  So I don't see how it has a bearing
> on SLOF addressing.

I meant "if we want to make QEMU present devices like pHyp, we cannot do 
that without fixing SLOF".

> >  (2) move the devices so that both SLOF and Linux see them as x:0:0
> >  (one target per channel).  This would be inconsistent with pHyp, but
> >  it doesn't break either SLOF or Linux.
> >
>
> (2) sounds like what PAPR describes to me, so that sounds fine to me.

No, PAPR describes one target per *host*, not channel.

Paolo