Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-03-05 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 09:20 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: Is this expected? Yes. Can you post it as a proper patch please. I suggest you split the basic stuff and the kind override discussed below in to two patches. +(b_info-u.hvm.gfx_passthru +

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-03-03 Thread Chen, Tiejun
Campbell, Are you free to look at my reply? Thanks Tiejun On 2015/3/2 9:20, Chen, Tiejun wrote: Here I just mean when Qemu realizes IGD is passed through but without that appropriate option set, Qemu can post something to explicitly notify user that this option is needed in his case. But it

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-03-01 Thread Chen, Tiejun
Here I just mean when Qemu realizes IGD is passed through but without that appropriate option set, Qemu can post something to explicitly notify user that this option is needed in his case. But it may be a lazy idea. In any case I think the additions of such warnings in qemu are a separate to

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-27 Thread Ian Campbell
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 14:28 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: On 2015/2/27 0:17, Ian Campbell wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:35 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: If we are going to do this then I think we need to arrange for the interface to be able to express the need to force the workarounds for a

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-26 Thread Chen, Tiejun
On 2015/2/27 0:17, Ian Campbell wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:35 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: If we are going to do this then I think we need to arrange for the interface to be able to express the need to force the workarounds for a particular device. IOW a boolean will not suffice since it

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-26 Thread Ian Campbell
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:35 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: If we are going to do this then I think we need to arrange for the interface to be able to express the need to force the workarounds for a particular device. IOW a boolean will not suffice since it doesn't indicate that IGD

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-12 Thread Chen, Tiejun
Ian, Just ping this, or do you think I should send this as a patch? Thanks Tiejun On 2015/2/11 10:45, Chen, Tiejun wrote: On 2015/2/9 19:05, Ian Campbell wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 14:28 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: What about this? I've not read the code in detail,since I'm travelling

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-10 Thread Chen, Tiejun
On 2015/2/9 19:05, Ian Campbell wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 14:28 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: What about this? I've not read the code in detail,since I'm travelling but from a quick glance it looks to be implementing the sort of thing I meant, thanks. Thanks for your time. A couple of

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-09 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 14:28 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: What about this? I've not read the code in detail,since I'm travelling but from a quick glance it looks to be implementing the sort of thing I meant, thanks. A couple of higher level comments: I'd suggest to put the code for reading the

Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [v2][PATCH] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough

2015-02-08 Thread Chen, Tiejun
On 2015/2/6 9:01, Chen, Tiejun wrote: On 2015/2/5 17:52, Ian Campbell wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:22 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote: Indeed this is not something workaround, and I think in any type of VGA devices, we'd like to diminish this sort of thing gradually, right? This mightn't come