Re: what should a virtio-mmio transport without a backend look like?

[Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>]

On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 17:41 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 June 2013 17:02, Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > Would using CONFIG_VIRTIO_MMIO_CMDLINE_DEVICES enumeration
> > instead of device tree be any easier?
> 
> My general view is that the kernel command line is
> the user's to manipulate, and that QEMU shouldn't
> touch it at all (just pass it through). (Conversely,
> QEMU shouldn't require the user to specify odd
> kernel command line arguments in order to make things
> work.)

I couldn't agree more. Command line is for the user and user only. And
the mention config option is optional ;-) (and, interestingly enough it
wasn't there in the original version of the driver).

> As it happens, if you use the command line to specify
> a virtio device it doesn't make the same complaint about
> bad magic number as if you specify it via dtb, but that
> should probably be fixed in the kernel :-)

I don't really see how this would be possible - the "complaining code"
is just a normal platform device probe function. And whether specified
in the command line or in the tree, it's the same - platform - device.

Are you sure you haven't misspelled the parameter name or something in
the definition syntax? ;-)

Paweł


_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization