This patch removes the code lines which set the subsystem id for the
emulated ac97 card to 8086:. Due to the device id being zero the
subsystem id isn't vaild anyway. With the patch applied the sound card
gets the default qemu subsystem id (1af4:1100) instead.
Cc: Takashi Iwai ti...@suse.de
On 11/07/2011 01:00 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
This patch removes the code lines which set the subsystem id for the
emulated ac97 card to 8086:. Due to the device id being zero the
subsystem id isn't vaild anyway. With the patch applied the sound card
gets the default qemu subsystem id
On 11/07/11 15:17, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/07/2011 01:00 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
This patch removes the code lines which set the subsystem id for the
emulated ac97 card to 8086:. Due to the device id being zero the
subsystem id isn't vaild anyway. With the patch applied the sound card
On 11/07/2011 08:33 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 11/07/11 15:17, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/07/2011 01:00 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
This patch removes the code lines which set the subsystem id for the
emulated ac97 card to 8086:. Due to the device id being zero the
subsystem id isn't vaild
On 11/07/2011 04:33 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 11/07/11 15:17, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/07/2011 01:00 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
This patch removes the code lines which set the subsystem id for the
emulated ac97 card to 8086:. Due to the device id being zero the
subsystem id isn't
On 11/07/2011 08:42 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/07/2011 04:33 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 11/07/11 15:17, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/07/2011 01:00 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
This patch removes the code lines which set the subsystem id for the
emulated ac97 card to 8086:. Due to the device id
On 11/07/2011 04:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
This a guest ABI change. Do we want -M support for it?
Given that the old subsystem id isn't valid I'd say no unless someone
comes up with a good reason.
Do we know that Windows won't complain about it?
I thought the original motivation for
On 11/07/2011 08:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/07/2011 04:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
This a guest ABI change. Do we want -M support for it?
Given that the old subsystem id isn't valid I'd say no unless someone
comes up with a good reason.
Do we know that Windows won't complain about
On 11/07/2011 04:53 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think so, but that's unrelated. The worry is that some DRM code
checksums your hardware and complains if it changed too much. Nothing
to do with the test suite.
The sense of Gerd's comment is reversed. We should preserve the ABI
unless
Hi,
This is more of an edge case however, since we know that hardware tools
rely on PCI IDs.
The ID is invalid, you can't do anything useful with it ...
For example our hypothetical ABI signature tool will
certainly include lspci like functionality and detect this as a change.
... except
On 11/07/2011 05:10 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
This is more of an edge case however, since we know that hardware tools
rely on PCI IDs.
The ID is invalid, you can't do anything useful with it ...
For example our hypothetical ABI signature tool will
certainly include lspci like
11 matches
Mail list logo
