On 02/08/10 18:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 02/08/10 18:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 02/08/10 17:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 12:14:11PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 02/08/10 11:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:41:47PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
initialize header type register in pci generic code.

Cc: Blue Swirl<blauwir...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin"<m...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata<yamah...@valinux.co.jp>

No objections here, I am assuming this will be followed
by patches removing header type init from bridges?
    From qdev perspective, it is probably cleaner to make
multifunction bit a separate qdev property though, right?

     From a qdev perspective it would make *alot* of sense to move a bunch of
pci config stuff (including, but not limited to header type) into
PCIDeviceInfo.

cheers,
     Gerd

Actually - won't this make it possible to create broken configurations
by tweaking properties from command-line?

Not as property, as struct element in PCIDeviceInfo.  i.e.

static PCIDeviceInfo e1000_info = {
      [ stuff which is here right now ]
      .vendor_id = PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL,
      .device_id = E1000_DEVID,
      .class     = PCI_CLASS_NETWORK_ETHERNET,
      [ probably more stuff which makes sense ]
}

Then setup this in generic pci code instead of having each driver doing
a bunch of pci_config_set_*() calls.

cheers,
    Gerd

We still end up with class, vendor etc duplicated in 2 places.

No.  The info should be *only* in PCIDeviceInfo then.

That would put a lot of code in pci config cycle path.  A single array
mirroring the whole config space is much cleaner.

  Why do
we want stuff like vendor id in PCIDeviceInfo at all?  Why can't
everyone just use pci_config_set/get calls?

You can do nice stuff like printing vendor/device IDs in the '-device ?'
list then.

That should use pci functions as well.

Hmm, do you mix up PCIDevice and PCIDeviceInfo structs?

cheers,
  Gerd



Reply via email to