On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:27:53PM +0200, 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? > And generally, it sounds bad to have header type duplicated in qdev > and in config. Why do we want it in qdev? > > Isaku Yamahata, could you please clarify?
My idea behind the patch is that making configuration space initialization a sort of table driven (in long term?) like Gerd and Blue already stated it. If there is a consensus to go for it, I'm willing to create patches. However it seems that we haven't reached the conclusion yet. I'm not sure it's worth while to allow user to tweak config space. -- yamahata
